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.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, there was a desire by the government to talk about something that is in fact really important to Canadians regarding labour relations. It is actually a piece of legislation that had already passed the House and gone to the Senate and had come back to the House. We were hoping to debate that piece of legislation.

For a number of reasons, the Conservatives, in particular, felt that there were other things they wanted to talk about. I am going to have to respect that fact. However, the issue they chose to raise is interesting. It is the issue of employment insurance.

There is no party that has been a stronger advocate for employment insurance and benefits than the Liberal Party of Canada over the last number of decades. In fact, the very creation of this national program originated under a Liberal administration. Over the years, we have seen many good things that have taken place under Liberal administrations, ensuring that those benefits, in different ways, have realized benefits for more and more Canadians.

I can recall the attitude of the former Conservative government on EI. They were negative attitudes toward my brothers and sisters out in Atlantic Canada. It is one of the reasons Atlantic Canada rejects the Conservatives. It is because the Conservatives have predetermined ideas about employment benefits. That is why I was a little surprised that this was the issue the Conservatives chose to talk about.

All we need to look at is the last budget. There were a number of things in that budget. As members know, I am very reluctant to read things into speeches, but I want to share some of the words provided to me with regard to employment insurance in this budget.

Budget 2017 contains several provisions aimed at improving the quality of life for Canadian families. I am thinking in particular of improvements to the employment insurance system, and that is the topic I would like to discuss this afternoon.

First, we must understand one thing. Canadians may, at some point in their lives, need to put their personal responsibilities before their professional ones. At such a juncture, Canada's special employment insurance benefits can be of help to them. Each year these benefits help thousands of eligible Canadians to care for a new baby or to care for a family member who is critically ill.

On the caregiver benefits, let us start by looking at the changes to the caregiver program. Budget 2017 proposed to create a new employment insurance benefit that would last up to 15 weeks. This new benefit would allow Canadians to care for an adult family member who was critically ill or severely injured. Benefits would be paid to people caring for an adult family member who was critically ill but was not at the end of life. This is a first for employment insurance.

I must add that this new benefit would supplement the compassionate care benefit for caring for critically ill family members at risk of death. Parents of critically ill children would continue to have access to up to 35 weeks of benefits. They would also now be able to share these benefits with more family members.

Now let us turn to parental benefits. Starting a family can be a challenge, especially for working parents. With budget 2017, we propose to help them meet those challenges. In short, this budget would offer flexibility to working parents. They would be able to choose the option that best meets their needs, depending on their work and family circumstances.

Under the proposed amendments, parents would therefore have two options. The first option would be to receive employment insurance parental benefits over an extended period at a lower benefit rate of 33% of their average weekly earnings. Benefits could be received for up to 18 months, counting both parental and maternity benefits.

The second option would be to receive benefits at the current rate of 55% over a period of up to 12 months.

These amendments are expected to cost $152 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, and $27.5 million per year after that. Parents may, of course, continue to share the benefits between them.

Furthermore, we propose to allow a pregnant woman, if she so chooses, to claim employment insurance maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before her due date, which is more flexible than the current standard of eight weeks. This additional flexibility is expected to cost $43.1 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, and $9.2 million per year after that.

That is why it is always a pleasure to stand in my place, especially on behalf of my constituents. Many of my colleagues would love to be able to share some of the thoughts that we have and some of the progressive actions we are taking as a government, recognizing what Canadians want the government to do.

Canadians understand the need for compassion. They understand that this is a government that cares about what is happening at the grassroots level. We have a Prime Minister who has challenged all members of the House to represent their constituents here in Ottawa, and my colleagues have taken that challenge to heart.

We constantly hear about the need to improve the employment insurance program. The Minister of Finance and the parliamentary secretary held pre-budget meetings and consultations in every region of this country, and that was a direct result of all the networking and communication, including online. We now have a budget that better reflects what Canadians want, and we on this side of the House see the many benefits to voting in favour of this budget.

We had a great debate yesterday on Bill C-44, which is a budget implementation bill. When we have a motion for concurrence on a report, as was moved earlier today, I would suggest that if members truly believe in employment insurance and want to see progressive action being taken to support Canadians, this is a budget they should be voting for, because it includes the kinds of initiatives that I have listed over the last few minutes.

I listened to the member across the way express concerns about what took place in committee, and I take exception to some of the comments that he made. Let me make reference to a couple of specific ones.

One comment was in regard to a perception that the Conservatives in particular are trying to get across, which is that this government is not sensitive with respect to what is taking place in our standing committees. Having been in opposition when Stephen Harper was prime minister, I witnessed first-hand a total disregard and lack of respect for our standing committees, with a parliamentary secretary sitting at the head of the table dictating, having that Harper bubble around, and nothing being passed unless it was a government initiative. I would suggest that the proof is in the pudding when we see legislation that goes to committee and opposition members—

Proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege raised by our colleague from Victoria, the NDP House leader. As one of those parliamentary keeners, I suppose I would like to add a few points on this important question of privilege.

On October 10, 1989, Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on a similar matter regarding misrepresentation of Parliament's role in government communication respecting the proposed goods and services tax. The government was advertising details of the tax as if Parliament had already adopted it. While the Speaker did not rule the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at the time, he did say:

However, I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.... we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.

In the Ontario legislature, Mr. Speaker Stockwell dealt with a question of privilege concerning a pamphlet issued by the minister of municipal affairs and housing regarding the government's program for reforming municipal government in metropolitan Toronto. On January 22, 1997, Mr. Speaker Stockwell ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege, since the pamphlet gave the impression that passage of required legislation was not necessary.

On November 6, 1997, on a similar matter, the Speaker ruled:

...the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department...are of some concern....

This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices....

I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.

The Prime Minister and the government's dismissive view of this Parliament should not and ought not be tolerated. If he is going to try to change the rules to suit himself, to attempt to circumvent the entire legislative process and give the impression that this Parliament has no role to play in the plans of the government to establish an infrastructure bank, that is wrong.

If he wants to establish his own version of Prime Minister's question period every Wednesday but then does not actually answer the questions, that is wrong.

He promises that he will not use omnibus bills, yet Bill C-44 is brought in and rammed in.

Mr. Speaker, reflecting on the citations I have raised and those raised by my colleague from Victoria, you ought to find that a prima facie question of privilege does exist in this matter.

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

Were you consulted on the nature of the changes presented in Bill C-44 before they were tabled?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to seek your ruling on what I believe to be a contempt of this House that constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. Should you rule in my favour, I would be prepared to move the usual appropriate motion. This relates to Bill C-44, the government's omnibus budget implementation act, that is currently making its way through the legislative process of this House and which will be followed by the often lengthy legislative process in the other place.

For Canadians watching at home, last night the House passed Bill C-44 at second reading, which is the second stage of a five-stage process that must be completed even before the bill heads to the Senate for study. The bill still needs to be studied at a House committee, reported back to this House, concurred in at report stage, and then, of course, adopted at third reading.

The summary of Bill C-44 is very informative. I will not read the whole thing, because even the summary of this massive omnibus bill is multiple pages in length, but the portion of the bill that I would like to focus on today is contained in part 4, “Various Measures”. The summary states:

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.

The idea that Canada's public infrastructure should be used as a tool to financially enrich private investors rather than as a way to enrich the lives of middle-class Canadians and those struggling to join it is bad enough, but the government has now gone beyond making bad policy decisions. It is actually discounting the need of this House to pass legislation before it rolls out appointments for this institution.

I would like to read from a Canadian Press news story dated May 8, 2017, with respect to the new infrastructure agency. After noting that it has been decided to locate this agency in Toronto, it states:

The Liberals are also starting a search to find a chair for the agency’s board of directors, the directors themselves and the chief executive officer. Anyone is able to apply for one of the appointments, but there are few people internationally with the expertise and job experience for the positions.

I reviewed the government's appointment website, and it advertises these appointments with a closing date of May 23 of this year. The government expects the agency to be up and running by the end of the year.

The enabling legislation has not been passed in this House—

[Jean-Denis Fréchette, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament]

Thank you. I'll go quickly to my remarks.

Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to address the changes to the PBO's mandate and operations, as set out in Bill C-44.

You have in your hands a discussion paper that outlines the major implications these changes could have on the PBO's effectiveness and ability to provide services to members of the Senate and House of Commons.

There is a paradox in the drafting of this bill. In the introduction, the new mandate is well written and respects the spirit of the PBO's role, as evidenced in proposed section 79.01:

Sections 79.1 to 79.5 provide for an independent and non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer to support Parliament by providing analysis, including analysis of macro-economic and fiscal policy, for the purposes of raising the quality of parliamentary debate and promoting greater budget transparency and accountability.

The paradox comes later when the bill imposes restrictions on this independence, in addition to undermining the PBO’s ability to effectively and efficiently respond to Parliament's requests. The most restrictive restrictions include, first, the degree of control that the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons will be expected to exercise over the office of the PBO’s activities; second, the limits of the PBO’s ability to initiate reports and members’ abilities to request cost estimates of certain proposals; third, the risks flowing from the PBO’s involvement in preparing cost estimates of election proposals; and finally, the restrictions on the PBO’s access to and—this is important—disclosure of information, and the lack of an effective remedy for refusals to provide access to information.

I see no problem in submitting a work plan to the Speakers. However, the PBO would become the only officer of Parliament to require the approval of both Speakers for his or her annual work plan. It seems clear to me that this will place considerable pressure on the two Speakers in regard to their neutrality, particularly during an election year and especially in the absence of a joint committee that has yet to be created.

Furthermore, if one adds to that obligation that the direction and control of the office of the PBO and its officers is vested in the Speakers, it is easy to see how time-consuming it could become for them and their own administration. That is why I'm fairly confident that this aspect of the bill will be reviewed and revised by the government.

The current wording of paragraph 79.2(1)(f), which deals with the freedom of any member of the Senate or House of Commons to request an estimate of the financial cost of any proposal, can be interpreted in more than one way and should be clarified.

Lastly, with respect to access to information, the absence of any mention of a remedy in the event of a refusal suggests that it will be up to the two Speakers to intervene in the event that a department or agency refuses to provide information requested by the PBO, or refuses that information be released by the PBO. This too could exert additional pressure on the two Speakers, and create a challenge for their staff, which will have to manage these matters of parliamentary privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Kevin Page]

I would clearly lay out the purpose. I would more clearly specify the mandate. I would be very particular on the qualifications of the budget officer that you want.

On the information provisions, we just heard questions. You need to get to the point that you know right now how you will handle those situations when the government of the day, perhaps a year or two before an election, says they're not giving you the information. I would work through these various types of scenarios.

I would build in an external review function for this office, so that after five or seven years you can have an external review of the office to assess whether it's performing its function and living up to your needs.

These are specific things. We've drafted language around the budget implementation act. The current parliamentary budget officer has done the same. We have, then, a good starting point.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Yes, but we have seen, in many cases, where Parliament doesn't actually work on behalf of Canadians, and I think that's why we have roles like yours, like the Auditor General, and others, that are independent. Whoever the government is, and however they choose to work with opposition and other members of Parliament, you're that independent....

That leads me to another question. I'd like your view on this. You're here as part of this legislation. Do you feel you should be here testifying as part of the consideration of the budget implementation act, or do you feel that with your experiences as a parliamentary budget officer, you should be here maybe testifying before a special committee to look at the role of the parliamentary budget officer, and not get buried within the implementation act?

[Kevin Page, President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to hear that the finance committee is an agreeable committee.

Thank you, Chair, Vice-Chairs, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. It is an honour to be with you today.

I will be making brief remarks on Bill C-44, particularly on the position of the parliamentary budget officer.

These remarks reflect analysis publicly released by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, or IFSD, at the University of Ottawa. They include both favourable and unfavourable observations. The bottom line is that amendments are necessary. I am heartened to hear that the government is open to changes.

My perspective is premised on the basic need for senators and members of Parliament to have financial analysis when they vote on spending and tax legislation. Given the uncertainty around projections and cost analysis, we want additional data backed by analysis for parliamentarians. Canada's Parliament needs a strong and independent budget office.

I congratulate the Government of Canada for having introduced a bill that will strengthen the Parliamentary Budget Office.

From this vantage point, a number of proposed changes are favourable. The position will be an officer of Parliament. Parliament will have a role in the selection of the officer. The officer can now be dismissed for cause, as opposed to working at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.

The mandate is being expanded to help political parties cost election platforms. Political parties struggle to find technical expertise to help them cost initiatives in their election platforms. Who better to do this in a non-partisan way than the PBO? It will not be easy to set up the protocols with the public service on information sharing, and with parties on the release and use of PBO analysis, but the benefits of a good process should be significant for parties and voters. This is a complicated endeavour that merits the careful consideration of parliamentarians.

When I took the position as parliamentary budget officer, few people with the requisite experience and skills wanted to be the PBO. During my mandate, there was confusion and tension around responsibilities and accountabilities. The officer position was situated in the Library of Parliament, so there were administrative accountabilities to the chief librarian and mandate accountabilities to Parliament.

The amendments proposed by the government will ensure the accountability of the parliamentary budget officer to Parliament, and may also encourage more people to apply for that position.

I have some less favourable—even unfavourable—observations related to the proposed legislation. I argue that it is essential that four provisions of the proposed legislation be amended to better serve parliamentarians. They deal with purpose, mandate, independence, and access to information.

Without these amendments, the Parliamentary Budget Office could be weakened and less independent than it is currently.

With regard to purpose, the purpose of the PBO must align directly with the core mandate of Parliament. According to Robert Marleau and Camille Monpetit, two Canadian experts on parliamentary procedure, the direct control of national finance is the “great task of modern parliamentary government”. The House of Commons is given the power of the purse, and the PBO plays an indispensable role by providing decision support in the form of economic and fiscal analysis to improve the quality of debate and outcomes for Canadians. The legislation should reflect this type of language. It should be strengthened with this purpose at its core.

The mandate in the proposed legislation is less clear and more restrictive than in the current legislation. It should be clarified. Do senators and MPs want independent economic and fiscal forecasts and related analysis? Do MPs want help with costing and scrutiny of spending and tax legislation? What the PBO will do to serve Parliament should be spelled out in the law very clearly.

For instance, the proposed legislation would no longer allow individual MPs to request costing analysis of government bills or procurement. Their requests would be limited to support on private members' bills. During my time as the PBO—the parliamentary budget officer—we received important requests from MPs to cost wars, fighter planes, and crime bills, among many other things. There is no good reason to restrict this important function of the parliamentary budget officer.

With respect to independence, independence for the parliamentary budget office means being free from political and bureaucratic influence in its work and reporting. An independent parliamentary budget officer should determine the work plan and undertake analysis within the mandate he or she deems important, in the same way that the Auditor General must undertake work in the audit of the public accounts. There should be no requirement to have work plans approved by Speakers of the Senate and/or the House of Commons. This does not exist for the Auditor General.

Given the frequency and volatility of economic information, it is also essential that the parliamentary budget officer publicly release timely reports, even if this means doing so when Parliament is not sitting. The proposed legislation would restrict reporting to only when Parliament is sitting.

With respect to access to information, in my experience, governments and the public service do not like to provide information that will be used to strengthen accountability. You must ask yourselves whether you want to strengthen the information provisions of the parliamentary budget officer. What if the government and public service refuse to provide essential information that the budget officer requires to serve you in your capacity to undertake financial due diligence? Should there be sanctions? Should the PBO have recourse to a federal court?

In closing, I want to make a plea for this Parliament to see the strengthening of the parliamentary budget officer and office as a beginning and not an end. Our estimates system is badly broken.

There is too little analysis on the thousands of dollars of expenditures approved through laws and appropriations. Our financial system needs a better alignment between expenses and the budget.

We need better control gates for accountability of spending and performance.

It is a privilege to be here and a privilege to take your questions. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

For the record, we're dealing with the order of reference now—rather than the pre-study—of Tuesday, May 9, 2017, Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

This afternoon we're fortunate to have, from the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, Kevin Page, who is the president and chief executive officer, and Mr. Khan, who is the executive vice-president. He will be a little late getting here, as I believe he's before the Senate committee at the moment.

I might mention as well that there may be a vote. I think it's scheduled for some time around 4:15, so that will disrupt the hearing for a little while and we may have to suspend.

Mr. Reid.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, in your presentation, you did a masterful job of highlighting the absurdity of our current situation. I have exactly three minutes to talk about Bill C-44, which the government is ramming down our throats as hard as it possibly can, to shut us up and make sure that we cannot point out the inconsistencies and everything that will happen after this budget implementation bill passes.

The bill makes amendments that will affect 30 departments. I will name a few of them. I will talk about the entire mechanism the Conservatives had put in place, during the previous government, in order to prevent the government in power from increasing fees unreasonably on the backs of Canadians.

The Liberal government will simply eliminate this mechanism and will take more money out of taxpayers' pockets. We are not at all surprised, given that the Liberal government is accumulating deficits. The only way for the government to generate revenue, which it does not have enough of, is to legalize marijuana, which will generate revenue at the expense of our youth and Canadians, and to increase costs by cancelling the public transit credit. That is absurd coming from a government that calls itself green.

In the last budget, the government eliminated tax credits for families whose children play sports or participate in cultural activities. Even worse, when tired Canadians go home on Friday and want to relax, the beer they open or the wine they pour will come with another tax on alcohol.

What we are seeing is completely ridiculous. I am not even talking about the infrastructure bank, which will be established at the expense of Canadians. The $35 billion should be used to help all municipalities across Canada, but will grease the palms of private investors who are controlling the government agenda.

Given all of that, we do not understand the purpose of this budget. The government says that it wants to support the middle class, but it is currently doing exactly the opposite.

The government gave us three days to discuss the budget. Really, it gave us only two days, not three, because last Friday, we had only an hour and fifteen minutes to discuss it. Today, I have only three minutes to tell my constituents about the aberration we are dealing with today.

What the government is doing does not make any sense. It is racking up debt for future generations, going forward with spending, and leading people to believe that it is lowering their taxes. It does not make any sense. As an MP who represents his constituents, I am extremely frustrated with this situation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the three wonderful minutes you gave me to speak.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

I will begin by talking about the part “and other measures”.

Bill C-44 before us is an omnibus bill, as were the budget implementation bills that we became used to seeing for many years. If it passes, this bill will amend more than 30 existing laws even though a third of these amendments were not even included in the budget presented on March 22.

What is strange, or maybe not, ultimately, is that it seems to me that I did hear the Liberals criticizing the previous government many times for the excessive use of omnibus bills. In fact, they promised to abolish this practice, which they deemed to be undemocratic.

I would like to read from page 30 of the Liberal Party of Canada's election platform:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

Those are the very same Standing Orders that the Liberal Party of Canada is trying to change in an undemocratic way, but that is another issue.

The platform is not the only place where the Liberals have called omnibus bills undemocratic. On June 9, 2015, the member for Kings—Hants, who is now President of the Treasury Board, said this in the House:

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....

Nevertheless, here we are debating the budget implementation bill under time allocation.

Here is another empty promise made in the House:

Liberals will end the abuse of omnibus bills which result in poorly reviewed laws.

Who said that? The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, the member for Vancouver Quadra.

The member for Bourassa had to remind her of the following:

I must tell my colleague that we are against omnibus bills. A few years ago the current government claimed that it was against these bills, which at the time might have had 20 or 30 pages. Now we have a bill with more than 175 pages.

I just wanted to point out to my Montreal colleague what he said in the House because his government's budget implementation bill is essentially an omnibus bill, even though it is not quite 290 pages long. He should be pretty ashamed, but do I look surprised? No.

It is part of the DNA of the Liberal Party of Canada to say one thing and do the opposite, the best example, of course, being electoral reform, a promise they broke, plain and simple, despite the fact that they solemnly promised that the 2015 election would be the last election under the current voting system. Shortly after that, they tried to force changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons down our throats, changes that are likely to affect our members' privileges, saying that they had promised to do so. Talk about hypocrisy.

During the election, and again today, the Liberals and the Prime Minister talked ad nauseam about “the middle class and those working hard to join it”, and yet those working hard to join it are by no means the people who are given priority in this bill.

In fact, while they eliminated the public transit tax credit that middle-class Canadians actually used, the Liberals are also making it easier for their rich friends to purchase our public infrastructure, the kind of people who can afford to pay $1,500 to have access to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, by creating the Canada infrastructure bank.

I want to emphasize that this is not about the middle class and those working hard to join it.

This bill also severely limits the parliamentary budget officer's role, which is to conduct independent studies and produce reports that he believes are in the interest of Canadians. This changes the role of the PBO, who would now have to submit a work report for the approval of the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate, as well as the chair of the finance committee, who is an elected member of the governing party. He would be the only officer of Parliament whose work plan must be approved.

In addition, research requests to estimate the costs of measures that fall within Parliament's jurisdiction would now be reserved for committees, whereas at the present time all MPs and senators can make such requests.

Incidentally, it is the research of the parliamentary budget officer, made at a member’s request, that showed us that the Liberals’ tax breaks benefited only the wealthiest, and not the middle class and those working hard to join it.

It is clear that this bill seeks to limit the ability of parliamentarians to hold the government to account and demand that it take responsibility for its actions.

I have spoken enough about what this omnibus bill contains. Now I want to talk about what it does not contain.

The 2017-18 budget provided substantial long-term funding for social and affordable housing. Following the government’s announcement, we were expecting to move on to consultations in preparation for the establishment of a real national housing strategy, for which the NDP has been calling for many years. We also thought they had finally acknowledged the ongoing housing crisis in Canada. It would seem, however, that they are in no rush to allocate the necessary resources immediately, in this budget and associated implementation bill. In fact, the government has decided to hold off on releasing over 90% of the budget announced for housing until after the next election.

However, the needs exist right now. More and more Canadian families are finding it hard to find adequate and affordable housing. The 2011 national household survey showed that 40% of Canadian tenant families were spending more than 30% of their income on housing, 19% were paying over 50%, and 9.5% of families were spending over 80% of their income on housing. There are many reasons to believe that these figures are no better today.

At the present time, the waiting lists for low-income families in need of social housing have hit record highs in our country's cities. For example, in Edmonton, 5,800 households are waiting for housing. In Montreal there are said to be 24,000, and in Toronto, 90,000. Ageing social housing infrastructure is in need of major renovations, and with the lack of funding, many housing projects have simply closed down. Property prices in major Canadian cities are skyrocketing because of speculation, to the point that fears of a real estate bubble are growing. For too many Canadian families, access to property is virtually impossible.

I have not mentioned the housing conditions and shortages in indigenous communities. However, in response to immediate and urgent request, the government has announced several billion dollars over 11 years, but has injected only a meagre $20 million in new money this year under the 2017-18 budget, $8 million of which will go to research on housing. Considering the immediate needs, $12 million more is not going to house a lot of people.

Last week I went to the national convention of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, the largest national association of housing stakeholders.

While people were generally happy with the investments announced in the last budget, many concerns came up regularly. Since we are already drafting omnibus budgets that include non-budgetary measures, I will cite a few of the measures that were suggested at the convention.

The association would like the housing strategy to formally recognize the right to appropriate and affordable housing, and would like the government to speed up the funding announced for housing in order to meet immediate needs, because the longer we wait, the worse the situation becomes; to take concrete steps to counter real estate speculation; to announce the construction of new social and community housing units; to establish a special strategy for the immediate and glaring housing needs in indigenous communities; and to include in its budget incentives for renovation and energy-efficient construction, which would be a smart investment.

I would add that the government should provide funds that are specifically dedicated to social and community housing, instead of including that funding more generally in the category of affordable housing.

Although I know that the government is going to remind me that I voted against certain measures it put forward in its budget, I will be obliged to vote against this bill, both for what it contains and above all for what it does not contain.

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

I know it's in the Judges Act and that it may not be in Bill C-44. But do you use this index and not another?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

In Bill C-44 in this area, the formula a times b divided by c, there is a foundation amount for each province in both home care and mental health so that some of the smaller provinces that are less populated don't get injured by just going to per capita. Is that correct?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. Earlier today, I had the the privilege of speaking on Bill C-44 in the House. I spoke about the agreement that was reached by the Minister of Health to deliver health care dollars and also funds for mental health to the Province of Ontario over a 10-year commitment. I'm quite proud to say that was signed and I was quite pleased to see that occur.

In terms of accountability mechanisms, such as reporting requirements that have been built into bilateral health care agreements, can you comment on any such agreements with the provinces?