Bill C-44 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2017 budget by
(a) eliminating the investment tax credit for child care spaces;
(b) eliminating the deduction for eligible home relocation loans;
(c) ensuring that amounts received on account of the caregiver recognition benefit under the Veterans Well-being Act are exempt from income tax;
(d) eliminating tax exemptions of allowances for members of legislative assemblies and certain municipal officers;
(e) eliminating the tax exemption for insurers of farming and fishing property;
(f) eliminating the additional deduction for gifts of medicine;
(g) replacing the existing caregiver credit, infirm dependant credit and family caregiver tax credit with the new Canada caregiver credit;
(h) eliminating the public transit tax credit;
(i) ensuring certain costs related to the use of reproductive technologies qualify for the medical expense tax credit;
(j) extending the list of medical practitioners that can certify eligibility for the disability tax credit to include nurse practitioners;
(k) extending eligibility for the tuition tax credit to fees paid for occupational skills courses at post-secondary institutions and taking into account such courses in determining whether an individual is a qualifying student under the Income Tax Act;
(l) extending, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(m) eliminating the tobacco manufacturers’ surtax;
(n) permitting employers to distribute T4 information slips electronically provided certain conditions are met; and
(o) delaying the repeal of the provisions related to the National Child Benefit supplement in the Income Tax Act.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 22, 2017 budget by
(a) adding naloxone and its salts to the list of GST/HST zero-rated non-prescription drugs that are used to treat life-threatening conditions;
(b) amending the definition of “taxi business” to require, in certain circumstances, providers of ride-sharing services to register for the GST/HST and charge GST/HST in the same manner as taxi operators; and
(c) repealing the GST/HST rebate available to non-residents for the GST/HST that is payable in respect of the accommodation portion of eligible tour packages.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures proposed in the March 22, 2017 budget by
(a) adjusting excise duty rates on tobacco products to account for the elimination of the tobacco manufacturers’ surtax; and
(b) increasing the excise duty rates on alcohol products by 2% and automatically adjusting those rates annually by the Consumer Price Index starting in April 2018.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Special Import Measures Act to provide for binding and appealable rulings as to whether a particular good falls within the scope of a trade remedy measure, authorities to investigate and address the circumvention of trade remedy measures, consideration of whether a particular market situation is rendering selling prices in an exporting country unreliable for the purposes of determining normal values and the termination of a trade remedy investigation in respect of an exporter found to have an insignificant margin of dumping or amount of subsidy.
Division 2 of Part 4 enacts the Borrowing Authority Act, which allows the Minister of Finance to borrow money on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada with the authorization of the Governor in Council and provides for the maximum amount of certain borrowings. The Division amends the Financial Administration Act and the Hibernia Development Project Act to provide that the applicable rate of currency exchange quoted by the Bank of Canada is its daily average rate. It also amends the Financial Administration Act to allow that Minister to choose a rate of currency exchange other than one quoted by the Bank of Canada. Finally, it makes a consequential amendment to the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and the Bank Act to
(a) specify that one of the objects of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is to act as the resolution authority for its member institutions;
(b) require Canada’s domestic systemically important banks to develop, submit and maintain resolution plans to that Corporation; and
(c) provide the Superintendent of Financial Institutions greater flexibility in setting the requirement for domestic systemically important banks to maintain a minimum capacity to absorb losses.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Shared Services Canada Act in order to permit the Minister responsible for Shared Services Canada to do the following, subject to any terms and conditions that that Minister specifies:
(a) delegate certain powers given to that Minister under that Act to an “appropriate Minister”, as defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act; and
(b) authorize in exceptional circumstances a department to obtain a particular service other than from that Minister through Shared Services Canada, including by meeting its requirement for that service internally.
Division 5 of Part 4 authorizes a payment to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research to support a pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to expand eligibility for student financial assistance under that Act to include persons registered as Indians under the Indian Act, whether or not they are Canadian citizens, permanent residents or protected persons. It also amends the Canada Education Savings Act to permit the primary caregiver’s cohabiting spouse or common-law partner to designate a trust to which is to be paid a Canada Learning Bond or an additional amount of a Canada Education Savings grant and to apply to the Minister for the waiver of certain requirements of that Act or the regulations to avoid undue hardship. It also amends that Act to provide rules for the payment of an additional amount of a Canada Education Savings grant in situations where more than one trust has been designated.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Parliament of Canada Act to provide for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to report directly to Parliament and to be supported by an office that is separate from the Library of Parliament and to provide for the appointment and tenure of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be that of an officer of Parliament. It expands the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s right of access to government information, clarifies the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s mandate with respect to the provision of research, analysis and costings and establishes a new mandate with respect to the costing of platform proposals during election periods. It also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.
This Division also amends the Parliament of Canada Act to provide that the meetings of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons are open, with certain exceptions, to the public.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Investment Canada Act to provide for an immediate increase to $1 billion of the review threshold amount for certain investments by WTO investors that are not state-owned enterprises. In addition, it requires that the report of the Director of Investments on the administration of that Act also include Part IV.‍1.
Division 9 of Part 4 provides funding to provinces for home care services and mental health services for the fiscal year 2017–2018.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to implement the Response of the Government of Canada to the Report of the 2015 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. It provides for the continued statutory indexation of judicial salaries, an increase to the salaries of Federal Court prothonotaries to 80% of that of a Federal Court judge, an annual allowance for prothonotaries and reimbursement of legal costs incurred during their participation in the compensation review process. It also makes changes to the compensation of certain current and former chief justices to appropriately compensate them for their service and it makes technical amendments to ensure the correct division of annuities and enforcement of financial support orders, where necessary. Finally, it increases the number of judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta and the Yukon Supreme Court and increases the number of judicial salaries that may be paid under paragraph 24(3)‍(a) of that Act from thirteen to sixteen and under paragraph 24(3)‍(b) from fifty to sixty-two.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, allow for the payment of parental benefits over a longer period at a lower benefit rate, allow maternity benefits to be paid as early as the 12th week before the expected week of birth, create a benefit for family members to care for a critically ill adult and allow for benefits to care for a critically ill child to be payable to family members.
This Division also amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, increase the maximum length of parental leave to 63 weeks, extend the period prior to the estimated date of birth when the maternity leave may begin to 13 weeks, create a leave for a family member to care for a critically ill adult and allow for the leave related to the critical illness of a child to be taken by a family member.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to, among other things,
(a) specify to whom career transition services may be provided under Part 1 of the Act and authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting those services;
(b) create a new education and training benefit that will provide a veteran with up to $80,000 for a course of study at an educational institution or for other education or training that is approved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs;
(c) end the family caregiver relief benefit and replace it with a caregiver recognition benefit that is payable to a person designated by a veteran;
(d) authorize the Minister of Veterans Affairs to waive the requirement for an application for compensation, services or assistance under the Act in certain cases;
(e) set out to whom any amount payable under the Act is to be paid if the person who is entitled to that amount dies before receiving it; and
(f) change the name of the Act.
The Division also amends the Pension Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to remove references to hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs as there are no longer any such hospitals.
Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) provide that a foreign national who is a member of a certain portion of the class of foreign nationals who are nominated by a province or territory for the purposes of that Act may be issued an invitation to make an application for permanent residence only in respect of that class;
(b) provide that a foreign national who declines an invitation to make an application in relation to an expression of interest remains eligible to be invited to make an application in relation to the same expression of interest;
(c) authorize the Minister to give a single ministerial instruction that sets out the rank, in respect of different classes, that an eligible foreign national must occupy to be invited to make an application;
(d) provide that a ministerial instruction respecting the criteria that a foreign national must meet to be eligible to be invited to make an application applies in respect of an expression of interest that is submitted before the day on which the instruction takes effect;
(e) authorize the Minister, for the purpose of facilitating the selection of a foreign national as a member of a class or a temporary resident, to disclose personal information in relation to the foreign national that is provided to the Minister by a third party or created by the Minister;
(f) set out the circumstances in which an officer under that Act may issue documents in respect of an application to foreign nationals who do not meet certain criteria or do not have the qualifications they had when they were issued an invitation to make an application; and
(g) provide that the Service Fees Act does not apply to fees for the acquisition of permanent residence status or to certain fees for services provided under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to broaden the definition of “insured participant”, in Part II of that Act, as well as the support measures that may be established by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. It also repeals certain provisions of that Act.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Aeronautics Act, the Navigation Protection Act, the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to provide the Minister of Transport with the authority to enter into agreements respecting any matter for which a charge or fee could be prescribed under those Acts and to make related amendments.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to give the Minister of Health the authority to fix user fees for services, use of facilities, regulatory processes and approvals, products, rights and privileges that are related to drugs, medical devices, food and cosmetics. It also gives that Minister the authority to remit those fees, to adjust them and to withhold or withdraw services for the non-payment of them. Finally, it exempts those fees from the Service Fees Act.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) transfer to the Canada Industrial Relations Board the powers, duties and functions of appeals officers under Part II of that Act and of referees and adjudicators under Part III of that Act;
(b) provide a complaint mechanism under Part III of that Act for employer reprisals;
(c) permit the Minister of Labour to order an employer to determine, following an internal audit, whether it is in compliance with a provision of Part III of that Act and to provide the Minister with a corresponding report;
(d) permit inspectors to order an employer to cease the contravention of a provision of Part III of that Act;
(e) extend the period with respect to which a payment order to recover unpaid wages or other amounts may be issued;
(f) impose administrative fees on employers to whom payment orders are issued; and
(g) establish an administrative monetary penalty scheme to supplement existing enforcement measures under Parts II and III of that Act.
This Division also amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to transfer to the Canada Industrial Relations Board the powers, duties and functions of adjudicators under that Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 18 of Part 4 enacts the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, which establishes the Canada Infrastructure Bank as a Crown corporation. The Bank’s purpose is to invest in, and seek to attract private sector and institutional investment to, revenue-generating infrastructure projects. The Act also provides for, among other things, the powers and functions of the Bank, its governance framework and its financial management and control, allows for the appointment of a designated Minister, and provides that the Minister of Finance may pay to the Bank up to $35 billion and approve loan guarantees. Finally, this Division makes consequential amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things, expand the list of disclosure recipients to include the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces and to include beneficial ownership information as “designated information” that can be disclosed by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. It also makes several technical amendments to ensure that the legislation functions as intended and to clarify certain provisions, including the definition of “client” and the application of that Act to trust companies.
Division 20 of Part 4 enacts the Invest in Canada Act. It also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Division 21 of Part 4 enacts the Service Fees Act. The Act requires responsible authorities, before certain fees are fixed, to develop fee proposals for consultation and to table them in Parliament. It also requires that performance standards be established in relation to certain fees and that responsible authorities remit those fees when the standards are not met. It adjusts certain fees on an annual basis in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. Furthermore, it requires responsible authorities and the President of the Treasury Board to report on fees. This Division also makes a related amendment to the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 and terminological amendments to other Acts and repeals the User Fees Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you all for coming.

As you know, we're dealing with the budget implementation act, Bill C-44.

We have presentations from five groups during this round. If you could hold your presentations as close to five minutes as possible, that would be helpful.

We'll start with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Brakel, senior director for economic, financial and tax policy.

Welcome, Mr. Brakel.

[Henry Wegiel]

Thank you very much for the question. I apologize, I can't answer in French due to my limited French abilities.

The purpose of Bill C-44 is to address unfair trade. Steel or other goods that come in are dumped and subsidized and distort the market and injure Canadian industry. From a procurement perspective and what you're referring to as the Buy American provisions in the United States, that is a completely different issue, which Bill C-44 doesn't address. If we discuss that a bit, Canada does have procurement provisions; and if we're going to be spending the billions of dollars that we indicate we are, moving forward into the future here in Canada, then we should be looking at potential Canadian preferences. This is particularly given the nexus now of what we're talking about from a trade standpoint and from an environmental standpoint, which is now becoming more critical for Canada.

To give you an example, Canadian steel used in Canada has one-third of the carbon footprint that steel from offshore does. When we put forward a procurement policy here in Canada, we should be looking at that and saying if both of those are important to us, the environment is important to us, then we should be looking at what products we are actually using in our procurement policies, and from where, to reduce that overall carbon footprint. In a nutshell, if you buy Canadian steel, you get a discount of two-thirds on the carbon footprint, and that is something that is being elevated now after COP21, and everything else in Paris, the impact of carbon on the environment and on Canada's procurement policies. We're very hopeful in working with the government on those sorts of measures that would help the economy and help the environment.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for the work you do in your different organizations and for enlightening us on your thoughts on Bill C-44.

I come from the Okanagan. The interior of British Columbia has a lot of opportunity to offer in tourism, so I'm going to start with Ms. Bell.

I find she has written down, conveniently, that there are 742 tourism operators in my area as well as just under 8,500 people who work in the industry. I appreciate your raising that today.

You have raised some legitimate concerns about our competitiveness. I was at the industry committee this morning. The minister responsible for small business and tourism, Minister Chagger, was there, and the question was brought to her about competitiveness. She said that one thing they needed to do was look at other jurisdictions and make evidence-based decisions. Do other jurisdictions that have a value-added tax or a goods and services tax have a similar provision for offering a rebate when you're trying to bring in business from out of the country?

[Charlotte Bell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tourism Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, committee members, on behalf of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, I am very pleased to be here today as part of the committee's study on Bill C-44.

TIAC is the only national voice representing the interests of all sectors of the tourism industry in Canada. This includes accommodations, transportation, destinations, and attractions. Our members range in size from small businesses, including many tour operators, to some of Canada's largest hotel chains, national airlines, rail services, destinations, and iconic tourist attractions from coast to coast to coast.

Tourism is a top economic driver for Canada, which last year generated $91.6 billion in revenues, surpassing forestry, agriculture, and fisheries combined. It also employs in excess of 627,000 Canadians and is considered a top employer of Canadian youth.

The first thing I'd like to do is reiterate our gratitude for the support received by the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, as well as the Minister of Finance concerning a number of positive commitments in the last budget. Specifically, we were pleased with news that Destination Canada, Statistics Canada, and indigenous tourism will receive much-needed funding to support tourism marketing, data collection, and indigenous tourism development. These are important initiatives that will reap significant benefits for the Canadian economy and job creation in the long term, and will help strengthen one of the primary growth industries in this country.

This said, changes to the foreign visitor tax rebate program, the FCTIP, and their proposed implementation have created a wave of concern and alarm within the tourism industry. As we try to obtain an interpretation from CRA as to how the changes will be implemented, there continues to be anxiety. While the stated goal of this proposed repeal is to eliminate inefficient tax measures, it may very well create financial hardship for a number of small tourism businesses across the country and will also make Canada even less cost competitive than it is today.

While tourism has seen important gains in international arrivals in the last couple of years, and especially last year, it's important to recognize that, globally, Canada is in 18th position in terms of international arrivals, falling behind countries like Saudi Arabia. For perspective, in 2000 Canada ranked eighth in the world, so we've lost some ground.

In terms of our cost competitiveness relative to other countries, Canada now ranks 97th out of 141 countries measured annually by the World Economic Forum. While the $50 million per year savings outlined in the supplementary budget documents may seem small and inconsequential, in reality the change is cause for concern. While the GST/HST rebate may have appeared to be underutilized, it was widely used as a competitive tool to attract international travellers to Canada by lowering the cost of tour packages to make them more affordable.

In the absence of this rebate, many businesses, including significant numbers of small and medium-sized tourism operators, will be left absorbing significant additional cost and in some cases eliminating their profits. Further, tour operators are also impacted, as travel packages can be pre-sold up to two years in advance and sometimes even longer. The rebate is usually built into the price of packages offered internationally, but actual payment doesn't occur until well after the travel has occurred. In fact sometimes it can be as late as three months later.

We understand that the proposed repeal is meant to apply in respect of supplies of tour packages or accommodations made after budget day. This implies that contracts made prior to budget day would still be eligible for the rebate. Given that the business cycle operates up to two years in advance, many contracts have been solidified well into 2018, with secondary agreements made under this umbrella. The fact that we don't yet know whether those secondary agreements will benefit from the current rebate is cause for concern.

The Minister of Small Business and Tourism unveiled a new tourism vision last week during Canada's largest travel trade show in Canada, which is Rendez-vous Canada. The minister set out bold goals for tourism growth in the coming years and recognized the importance of this sector to Canada's economy and to its job creation.

So do we. We fully support and embrace growth and intend to work closely with the minister and others to see those goals become a reality, but in order to get there, Canada must address its cost competitiveness. Every new tax, every new levy, every new additional fee chips away at our ability to compete internationally and grow the sector. Tourism remains the only export sector in Canada that's not zero rated. The GST/HST rebate, while perhaps imperfect, was at least one very small way of lowering costs, but now that, too, will be gone.

As I said at the opening, Canada's tourism is a $91.6-billion sector, and we want to see that grow to $125 billion, but we need to address our cost competitiveness if we're going to increase overall tourism numbers by 30% in the next few years. Otherwise the numbers may very well go in a different direction.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Mike Darch, President, Consider Canada City Alliance]

It is my pleasure to address you today to give the support of the Consider Canada City Alliance to the Invest in Canada Act and its implementation. My name is Michael Darch. I am the president of the Consider Canada City Alliance. With me is Blair Patacairk, who is the chair of our government relations committee, as well as the managing director for investment and trade here at Invest Ottawa.

I intend to address three points today: the support of the CCCA and its members for the investment hub to be established by Bill C-44, the benefits and relationships that would be established between our members and the hub, and activity already under way to ensure that the economic opportunities presented by the establishment of the hub are quickly and effectively achieved.

First, I will give you a short introduction to the CCCA. Seven of Canada's large cities came together in Calgary in 2007 to explore common challenges in attracting foreign investment to Canada. That collaboration continued with the invest in Canada bureau within Foreign Affairs. In 2012, we incorporated as a not-for-profit organization. Today, the CCCA includes 13 of Canada's largest municipal investment promotion agencies, stretching from Halifax to Vancouver. Together, the economic influence zones of the members encompass all or part of 14 of Canada's census metropolitan areas that represent 59.6% of Canada's population, 65.1% of Canada's GDP, and 83.4 % of Canada's GDP growth between 2011 and 2016.

The mission of the Consider Canada City Alliance is to contribute to a sustainable and globally competitive national economy built on the collective strength of the ecosystems in each member region.

The members of the CCCA were therefore delighted with the announcement in the fall economic statement in 2016 of the intent to create the invest in Canada hub. The members of the CCCA view the creation of the hub as a significant commitment by the Government of Canada to the importance of foreign direct investment as a generator of wealth and to the creation of jobs across all demographics. It will be an essential stimulant to the innovation economy in Canada. The proposed invest in Canada act contained in Bill C-44 translates that intent into reality.

The members of the CCCA welcome the opportunity to contribute to the success of the investment hub and to assist in optimizing the overall effectiveness of both the hub and municipal efforts to attract investors to Canada. We do not minimize the complexity and challenge of the endeavour to create the hub. We would offer whatever assistance we can to ensure the success of the project.

We agree with the following assertion in the fall economic statement:

Around the world, leading companies are looking for stable places to invest and grow their businesses. Smart countries are mobilizing to take advantage of the opportunities and jobs that go hand in hand with global investment. Canada cannot afford to be left behind.

We look forward to the hub's becoming the single window for investors looking to invest in Canada. It is our hope that the hub will become the single access point for municipalities to the Canadian government for matters relating to investment attraction.

Therefore, it is our aspiration that the hub would have the capacity to assist, advise, and champion on matters such as immigration policy and processes, federal incentive programs, federal economic development strategies, policies with respect to investment promotion, the development and marketing of the Canada brand, and lead generation and client servicing.

Similarly, the municipalities will ensure that each designates a contact for the hub on matters related to investment attraction matters within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, should the decision be made to place hub officers in locations across Canada, we strongly recommend that the officer be co-located with our respective member.

Finally, we would welcome the role of the hub in coordinating team Canada missions in support of trade and investment.

It is our hope that the operating relationship be founded on the principles of collaboration, complementarity, and consistency.

Already the CCCA and its members are working to make the hub a success. Each member already has a concierge service for incoming and existing foreign investors, which will be available to the hub. A close working relationship has been established with the hub implementation team, and meetings are held regularly. All members participated in the KPMG outreach, led by the Privy Council Office, on attracting foreign direct investment to Canada. All members have been invited to be referral partners for the new, dedicated service channel being established by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. The CCCA chair participated in a deputy minister level consultation round table on the development of the hub. We are working with the Trade Commissioner Service to ensure that the 15 new investment officers expected to be hired this year under the hub program are fully aware of the services, capabilities, and value propositions represented by each of our members.

In summary, the CCCA, one, fully supports the invest in Canada hub and the legislation contained in Bill C-44 to bring it to reality; two, is fully committed to the economic advantages to be gained by Canada through the provision of a single service window for foreign investors, which integrates the resources of all levels of government; and three, is actively working with the hub implementation team and its federal partners to ensure that Canada reaps the maximum economic benefit from the global opportunities available today.

I thank you for your time. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[Henry Wegiel, Vice-Chair, Trade and Public Policy Committee, Canadian Steel Producers Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, honourable members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to present today on behalf of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, or CSPA, as regards Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017.

The CSPA is the national voice of Canada's $14-billion primary steel production industry. Canadian steel producers are integral to the automotive, energy, construction, and other demanding industrial supply chains. CSPA seeks to work with governments and industry partners to advance policies that enable a globally competitive business environment for its member companies and various supply chain stakeholders.

As committee members are aware, the global steel industry is at an inflection point as the result of growing overcapacity and direct state intervention in the sector. Canadian producers are not immune to or sheltered from the truly unprecedented international challenges that currently face the sector. The steel industry has, on a worldwide basis, seen a significant increase in market distorting dumping and circumvention practices, both from China directly and from a host of other global producers whose home markets have also, in many cases, suffered because of unfair Chinese competition.

To put that in perspective, the root cause of our issue is that there is 700 million tonnes of global excess capacity in a steel market of 1.6 billion tonnes. Out of that 700 million tonnes of excess capacity, over 400 million tonnes is in China.

Simply put, that steel has to go somewhere. The price deterioration and the market instability associated with the illegal steel trade have contributed significantly to our industry's challenges and are hurting middle-class Canadian families. As a direct result, investment in Canadian facilities, capacity utilization, and employment are under threat throughout Canada's steel production and manufacturing sectors.

With that in mind, the CSPA welcomes the Government of Canada's budget 2017 commitments to improve its ability to remedy dumped and subsidized imports by implementing measures that effectively modernize the Canadian trade remedy system.

Specifically, the CSPA appreciates the amendments in budget 2017 to the Special Import Measures Act, or SEMA. These four major amendments provide for the following: first, the ability to expand a trade remedy measure to address circumvention of dumping duties; second, more transparent and predictable enforcement of trade remedy measures; third, the ability to address market distortions in the country of export when establishing dumping margins; and last, the ability for unions to now participate in trade remedy proceedings.

With these changes, taken in conjunction with the changes that were implemented in budget 2016, the Canadian government has taken meaningful, substantiative, and timely steps to modernize Canada's trade remedy system.

Almost as importantly, these trade defence mechanisms also send an important signal to our closest trading partner, the United States, that Canada remains a partner equally committed to battling and addressing unfair trade.

In this regard, in 2015 and 2016, the U.S. implemented their own trade remedy modernization via their trade enforcement act and the Leveling the Playing Field Act. Now Canada and the United States are on equal footing from a trade remedy standpoint.

However, recently the U.S. has initiated processes such as the ongoing section 232 investigation on the effect of imports of steel on U.S. national security, and a consultation concerning construction of pipelines using domestic—that is, U.S.—steel and iron.

As we work to seek exclusions from future U.S. findings or actions, it will be essential to remind the U.S. administration of both our existing joint efforts on steel enforcement and our renewed legislative commitments to combatting unfair steel trade in North America.

In closing, I would remind this committee that unfairly traded goods pose a clear and present threat to the livelihoods of over 22,000 middle-class Canadians, together with their families, employed directly in steel production and the additional 100,000 Canadians whose employment is indirectly impacted by the sector.

Steel production in Canada involves significantly advanced manufacturing processes, and Canada's steel workers are well educated, highly skilled, and trained throughout their careers.

With this in mind, I urge this committee to recommend the passage of the amendments in Bill C-44 related to strengthening Canada's response to unfair trade and to encourage the government's quick implementation of the related regulations. This will allow our industry to take advantage of these new legislative tools to defend against the well-documented and corrosive impacts of global overcapacity and unfair trade in steel.

I thank you for your time, and I'm happy to take any questions that members may have.

[Brian Kingston, Vice-President, Policy, International and Fiscal Issues, Business Council of Canada]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, and committee members, thank you for the invitation to take part in your consultations on Bill C-44. I have some very short opening remarks. I will give you the general overview from the Business Council's perspective on the budget, and then I'll specifically talk about infrastructure and investment.

The Business Council of Canada represents the chief executives and entrepreneurs of 150 leading Canadian companies in all sectors and regions of the country. Our member companies employ 1.7 million Canadians; account for more than half the value of the Toronto Stock Exchange; contribute the largest share of federal corporate taxes; and are responsible for most of Canada's exports, corporate philanthropy, and private sector investments in R and D.

In the council's pre-budget submission, we urged the government to adopt a laser-like focus on competitiveness as the key to generating long-term economic growth and ensuring a better life for all citizens. We believe that Canada needs a focused strategy to encourage new business investment, attract international capital, and enhance Canada's ability to compete in a global economy.

Among other recommendations, we called on the government to streamline the approval process for private sector infrastructure projects, develop a comprehensive plan to broaden the tax base and bring down rates, and set out in detail a fiscally sustainable path to balanced budgets with a commitment to an explicit debt-to-GDP target. Acting on these recommendations would, among other things, help position Canada as a global trade and investment hub, and we believe this is increasingly important in the face of protectionist and competitiveness threats.

So, we welcome the government's efforts to establish the Canada infrastructure bank to attract private sector and institutional investment to new revenue-generating infrastructure projects. Targeted spending on productivity and trade-enhancing infrastructure projects would bolster Canada's long-term competitiveness. In our view, the infrastructure bank should be designed to stimulate, through open and competitive bidding, the development of infrastructure projects that would not otherwise be pursued by federal, provincial, or municipal authorities.

But importantly, injecting new capital alone will not improve infrastructure. The federal government can lay the groundwork for new, major infrastructure projects by ensuring the regulatory approval processes are transparent, predictable, fact-based, and capable of rendering decisions in a very timely manner.

Turning to foreign investment, another important element of Bill C-44, the Business Council has long called for the creation of a single window to attract major investments to Canada, and for that reason we welcome the proposed invest in Canada hub. Canada's ability to attract foreign investment has diminished. In the early 1980s, the stock of inward foreign direct investment, FDI, as a share of GDP was higher in Canada than in countries such as Australia, Norway, Sweden, and the U.K. Today the situation is reversed. Canada lags behind all four of those countries as a destination for foreign investment, and over the same period our country's share of the global FDI stock has fallen from 8% to just below 3%. According to the “World Investment Report 2016”, compiled by UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Canada does not even rank among the top 15 prospective host economies for multinational investment in the 2016-18 period. That's a drop from the 11th destination last year. This is based on a survey of multinational executives, and we find that quite a worrying ranking.

We believe that the proposed investment hub will help Canada reverse these worrying trends and bring new investment into Canada. Finally, we believe that foreign investment is beneficial to Canada, except in very unique circumstances. For that reason, we support raising the Investment Canada Act review threshold to $1 billion in Bill C-44.

With that, I conclude my remarks and look forward to questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I should make note that at the conclusion of the letter, Ms. Sgro, the chair of that committee, said: “Please note, I invited Committee Members to contact the Parliamentary Counsel and Legislative Clerk assigned to Bill C-44 should Members wish to draft amendments on their own initiative and to submit them directly to the Clerk of the Standing Committee of Finance before Friday, May 19, 2017 at 5 p.m.”

I assume you've seen that, Luc.

I have Mr. Dusseault and then Mr. Albas.

Mr. Dusseault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

The letter may have come in this morning. I am just now reading it. As you're well aware from the letter I wrote to your chair on behalf of this committee, we farmed out certain sections of Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, to other committees. This one that went to the transportation committee was, I believe, dealing with the infrastructure bank. It was our intention that this committee....

We had meetings this morning with those witnesses, or was it yesterday?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, fellow members.

I'd like to talk about something that happened in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

This week, we had the pleasure of hearing from witnesses on Bill C-44. We spent two hours discussing the bill. My fellow members on the committee did not think that was anywhere near long enough.

When the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities met this morning, we were shocked to learn that the chair of the committee had sent a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. We didn't even know about the letter. As you probably know, Mr. Chair, the letter is dated tomorrow. I'm not sure what that mistake might mean. It may have something to do with the chair's haste to respond without the consent of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

We discussed the matter at length this morning. The members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities asked for more time to study Bill C-44 in order to make recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance.

I wanted to make everyone aware of the situation. The letter was sent to the Standing Committee on Finance without the knowledge of the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

What's more, we never even got the letter. I had to ask the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to give us a copy. None of my colleagues in the opposition, the NDP, or even the government party had received the letter.

For me, that raises questions about the procedure used and about what the Standing Committee on Finance intends to do with the letter, knowing that the committee it came from did not have the opportunity to discuss it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order, as we continue this afternoon with our further panels. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 9, on Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, we have two panels this afternoon for the next hour and a half. We will start with the Business Council of Canada.

I understand, Mr. Berthold, there is something you want to say before we start the panel.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

I do appreciate where members of the opposition are coming from, and I do admit that there's some ambiguity, specifically with the date here. I'd like to suggest that this is not some grand scheme or anything intentional. Like you, Ms. Block, I was not familiar with this letter before today.

I think the paragraph that seemed to give Monsieur Rayes some real concern was the one about the committee's not having recommendations. I think that could be taken to mean that the chair hasn't received them. We had set aside a meeting because of the time constraint to get this to the finance committee for the 19th to deal with it. I assume the chair has included language to that effect, because she didn't receive recommendations on behalf of the committee.

If members of the opposition do have proposed amendments, I would encourage them to send them to the parliamentary counsel and legislative clerk, as is outlined in the final paragraph.

I know this is a contentious piece of legislation. We've heard witnesses here. We've had the minister here. We've debated the infrastructure bank specifically for one full day in the House as the result of an opposition motion, and it's come up a number of times over the course of the debate on BillC-44.

Although there may be disagreement, and I understand there is disagreement, I've heard evidence in our committee and argument in the House that convinces me that this infrastructure bank belongs in the budget implementation act, and I'm personally supportive of it.

Although there is a procedural difficulty with the dates in Mr. Rayes' motion, the motion is a request to add time to conduct the study. I personally don't feel that extra time is necessary because I feel we have on the table what we need to satisfy me that this is a good idea that is going to help the communities I represent.

I do appreciate that this is a point of disagreement, but I would ask, as a sign of good faith, that we don't take this letter to be some piece of malfeasance by our ordinary chair because I sincerely do not believe that was her intention.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

The second part of the motion, which, in my opinion, is still very valid and which I would like the committee to support, proposes that our committee write a letter to the Standing Committee on Finance to request that more time be dedicated to the study of the Infrastructure Bank of Canada. In reality, this directly contradicts the chair's decision to send, on our behalf, a letter yesterday—a letter dated tomorrow, I might add—stating that the committee has no amendments or recommendations on this issue.

With respect to this letter to the Standing Committee on Finance, I would like to remind the committee of this:

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recommends that your Committee permit more time to study the design and implications of the proposed Infrastructure Bank by removing Part 4, Division 18, and other references to that Bank, from the rest of Bill C-44.

In reality, it's about splitting Bill C-44 to remove the part concerning the Infrastructure Bank of Canada.

I would like to point out that it is not sufficient to examine an issue this important, which affects all Canadian taxpayers, for an hour and a half. Important questions were asked concerning the interests of this bank, the real benefits relative to other existing financing options, and even the evidence supporting its creation.

In order to believe in the merits of the proposed bank, we must be able to further examine the issue. I remind you that we are talking about money belonging to all Canadians, which is not to be taken lightly. We are talking about $35 billion that will line the pockets of businesses, investors, and firms. Who will incur the risks associated with this money? Canadians will.

As someone representing Canadians, I find what is happening unacceptable. An attempt was made to muzzle us by stating, on our behalf, that there were no recommendations to be made. To imagine for a second that we would not make a single recommendation in the report on the study the committee is currently undertaking, one would have had to be oblivious to everything that was said during the question and comment period and to what the witnesses who came here told us. I am speechless. It is the first time that I see such a situation. I am furious. We are talking about our fellow citizens. We were elected to gain their trust.

An attempt is being made to put one over on us, as they say. This is too big. It's like trying to push a train through a mouse hole and thinking that we wouldn't notice. A letter dated tomorrow—because that's the deadline—was sent yesterday on our behalf. I'm not sure whether you realize. It said that we would have the opportunity to have our say, but that's false.

I do not know how we will deal with this, but it is clear to me that we must, at the very least, contact the members of the Standing Committee on Finance and ask them to give us more time to study the issue so that we can get to the bottom of it. If this bank is to be created, it will not be because the Liberals used their majority in the House to push it through under our noses, unbeknownst to Canadians. What we are experiencing is completely ridiculous.

I hope that the government members will at least be embarrassed by this situation and agree to this motion so that we can have more time, especially because we have a letter speaking on our behalf.

I don't know how to react to all of this. I sincerely hope that everyone will agree and that members across the table will support this motion. We would then have more time to ask questions, as we should, and to make recommendations so that the government can make the best decision possible, without smuggling this under our noses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Therefore, I will keep the end of my motion, as it is the only part that is still valid: “That the committee write a letter to the FINA Commitee to request additional time to conduct its study of the Infrastructure Bank.”

Allow me to explain this request.

I have, in my hands, a letter which is curiously dated tomorrow, Friday, May 19, 2017 but was sent yesterday to the Standing Committee on Finance. Does everyone have a copy of this letter? It is signed by our chair, who, unfortunately, is not present. What a shame, because I would have liked to hear what she has to say about this.

The letter reads as follows:

Upon your request, the Standing Committee of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertook the consideration of clauses 403 to 406 (Division 18, Part 4) of Bill C-44. In doing so, the Committee heard testimony from the Canadian Electricity Association, the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, the Canadian Union of Public Employees as well as officials from Infrastructure Canada and Finance Canada.

So far, everything is true.

The problem is when the chair speaks on our behalf and says the following:

I am pleased to inform you that the Committee has no recommendations….

I would like for the clerk to confirm whether we all made this decision together, as a committee. To my knowledge, this is not the case, and I do not believe I have missed any discussions about this subject.

The letter continues as follows:

… or suggested amendments for clauses 403 to 406 of Bill C-44.

I don't know whether my fellow members across the table will have the courage to confirm my statement, but I find this very peculiar. This is the first time since I became a member of Parliament that I have experienced such a situation, that someone speaks in my name, sends a letter two days before the date indicated on the letter, which is already a peculiar way of doing things, and decides for me, in the name of all the committee members, that there will be no amendments.

The letter continues:

Please note I invited Committee Members to contact the Parliamentary Counsel and Legislative Clerk assigned to bill C-44 should Members wish to draft amendments on their own initiative and to submit them directly to the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance before Friday, May 19, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.

I have searched all of my emails and letter mail without finding anything in writing in either official languages offering me this possibility.

The letter concludes:

Yours sincerely.

The Infrastructure Bank is a big issue. Many witnesses were of the opinion that such a bank was premature. I will repeat what the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy official said: we are putting the cart before the horse.

I want to make clear that we are talking about $35 billion. That's 35 billion taxpayer dollars that will be used to enrich investors, for the most part foreign investors, to the detriment of Canadians. This is simply a way for the government, and therefore taxpayers, to secure the investments of these businesses or foreign investors.

Our committee chair, a Liberal member, is speaking in my name, in a letter dated tomorrow and sent yesterday, to announce that our committee will not propose any amendments. I just cannot believe it. I hope that our discussion is on the record and that it is not taking place in camera. Are we in camera? No, we are not. I want to try to highlight the inconsistency in which we find ourselves.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to the remarks made yesterday by members of a group representing veterans. They said that significant amounts will be allocated to the training program to help people who have left the Canadian Armed Forces return to school.

I asked how many people could use the program, and I was told the details, meaning the regulations, could cause problems. Even though there are new provisions, clause 5.93 of Bill C-44 states in part:

5.93 The Governor in Council may make regulations: (a) prescribing how the length of service in the reserve force is to be determined for the purposes of paragraph 5.2(1)(a); (b) respecting what constitutes honourable release for the purpose of paragraph 5.2(1)(b); (c) providing for the periodic adjustment of the maximum cumulative amount referred to in subsection 5.2(2); (d) defining “educational institution” for the purposes of paragraph 5.3(1)(a); (e) prescribing the education or training that may or may not be approved by the Minister under section 5.5;

Therefore, everything will be established through regulations. As we were told yesterday, the regulations could cause difficulties in terms of whether veterans can use the program, for example.

Can you tell us when the regulations will be made and when the details on eligibility will be released so that veterans can know whether they're eligible for the program?

As parliamentarians, we can also determine the program's effectiveness.