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.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, my colleague will have the opportunity to respond to the arguments presented by the NDP member for Sherbrooke.

I would like to remind the committee that, in our view, Bill C-44 is not a good bill. Some of its elements would be worth discussing outside an omnibus bill. Invest in Canada is one of those elements.

It goes without saying that we Conservatives do not object at all to foreign investors in Canada, as long as they comply with our regulations, of course. What we are challenging in this approach is the creation of another structure, another agency, another stage—some will say another “thing”—that will make the process more cumbersome.

For decades, we have been engaging in international trade successfully. In fact, we have been welcoming foreign investments for centuries. So there's no problem with that. But the creation of another crown corporation and all the ensuing steps will weigh down the system. The government is trying to suggest a way of doing things that we feel is not right.

Let's allow the free market to do its job and the foreign investors to come here, as they have done up to now and as Canadians do abroad. We always have to strike a balance. When our entrepreneurs invest abroad and acquire new businesses for the benefit of Canadians, we applaud enthusiastically. Now it should be the same the other way around. We cannot, on the one hand, welcome the fact that Canadians invest abroad and, on the other hand, be angry when foreign nationals invest in our country. We have to maintain a balance.

Mr. Chair, we will therefore oppose all the clauses that follow. Please take note that we will be asking for a recorded vote for each one.

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

Thank you.

I hear what my colleague is saying, but I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing.

Bill C-44 seeks to exempt a whole host of applications under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act from the Service Fees Act. My amendment, which seeks to restrict that exemption, simply reads: “application for a temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit or extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident.”

As you can see, the current bill lists various kinds of applications that could be exempted from the Service Fees Act, applications that are listed in proposed paragraphs 89(1.2)(a) to (h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. When people renew applications, or apply for work permits when they have study permits that are still valid, I am not sure that a link needs to be established. As I see it, the fees still apply.

If people apply for work permits in Canada when they have study permits already, do the work permit fees apply?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ-8 may seem rather technical but, in our view, is fundamental.

As far as the creation of the infrastructure bank is concerned, Bill C-44 brings about a major change, one that is totally absurd and has gone without mention. Amendment BQ-8 seeks to correct that.

The infrastructure bank would be the agent of the crown for all projects specified by the government. Paragraph 5(4)(d) of the proposed act stipulates that the infrastructure bank would be the agent of the crown whenever the government sees fit. That means the bank would be considered the representative of the federal government and enjoy all of the privileges and immunities that go along with that status.

Further in the new act, it is clear from subsection 18(c) that the privilege would extend to wholly private projects submitted to the infrastructure bank. According to the provision, the bank may “acquire and deal with as its own any investment made by another person”.

First of all, that gives private investors an unlimited loan guarantee. We are talking not just about the $20 billion that was announced but, rather, about an unlimited loan guarantee. That is ridiculous.

Second of all, that shelters those private investments from the jurisdiction of Quebec and municipalities because, under the new act, the investments and infrastructure projects are the federal government's. Unlike with the Champlain bridge project, for example, the government will no longer have to use its declaratory power to consider an investment as being exclusively under federal jurisdiction. That is a huge change that has gone overlooked and a terrible injustice, in our view.

What this change does is exempt investors from Quebec's laws and municipal bylaws. Quebec's environmental legislation will no longer be taken into account. TransCanada's energy east pipeline project could be approved without any BAPE hearings, as long as the investments are made through the infrastructure bank. Quebec's Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities would also be tossed aside. Roads and every other type of infrastructure could be built in green areas. The change flouts Quebec's laws: city plans, land-use plans, and zoning bylaws. It is, in all likelihood, unconstitutional.

I don't understand why this change appears in Bill C-44. If the government persists in creating this infrastructure bank, it must, at the very least, do what we are asking and eliminate these abusive powers by removing subsection 5(4) of the new act. I hope my message came through loud and clear.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Page 178 of Bill C-44 deals with the new Service Fees Act, specifically in relation to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It lists the applications that will be subject to the Service Fees Act. It will apply to the processing of applications for a temporary or permanent resident visa; for a work permit or study permit; for an extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident; to remain in Canada as a temporary resident; to sponsor a foreign national as a member of the family class; to make the request referred to in subsection 25(1); for a travel document issued under subsection 31(3); and for a permanent resident card. All of those situations will be subject to the Service Fees Act. My colleagues no doubt remember quite well that the proposed service fees legislation was the subject of extensive debate, to my surprise, and included an adjustment for inflation. That means that all of the applications I just listed, which appear in subclause 304(1.2) of Bill C-44, will be subject to the Service Fees Act.

I think that's a bad idea. I believe that even the people from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada said that the changes in cost for some of these applications would likely have the biggest impact on a vulnerable clientele, specifically.

All my amendment would do is specify that only an “application for a temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit or extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident” was subject to the Service Fees Act. The act would apply only to those cases and not to all the other categories.

I hope my colleagues will support my amendment; that would give parliamentarians greater reassurance that the other fees covered by clause 304 would be subject to more diligent scrutiny. If the fees go up, the minister will have to take responsibility for the decision to raise the fees for these applications, and I think that should be the case. It is therefore my hope that my colleagues will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Madame Pauzé.

Yes you are correct. I will rule the amendment as inadmissible, and I'll explain why.

Bill C-44 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act to increase flexibility in the provisions of caregiving and parental benefits. The amendment would result in higher benefits being claimed beyond those that the bill provides for. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge in the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In my opinion, the amendment would extend the charge on the public treasury. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible. The amendment was for new clause 235.1, so we do not need to deal with that.

There are no amendments for clauses 236 to 244. Is there consent to deal with them as a block?

(Amendments 236 to 244 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 245)

We now have NDP amendment 17.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning everyone.

The amendment in front of you seeks to extend the qualifying period. Through Bill C-44, the government is making changes to maternity leave under EI and increasing the number of weeks a woman is able to receive maternity benefits. That's wonderful. The government is recognizing that helping women better integrate into the workforce and economy is beneficial to all aspects of economic life. That's the good news.

As for the not so good news, believe it or not, a mother who loses her job during, or immediately following, her parental leave does not qualify for employment insurance. It would therefore be extremely difficult for mothers who took maternity or parental leave to collect employment insurance after losing their jobs. That is already a problem in Quebec, and we have repeatedly alerted the minister. No meaningful action has been taken, and that's why I am here today. Our amendment would plug that hole in the legislation.

Let's take a closer look at the problem. Currently, in order to determine whether someone is eligible to receive EI, the government relies on the number of hours that person has worked during the last year. Even if the government extends the benefit period, however, Canadian women will experience what women in Quebec have been dealing with since parental leave was introduced: if they lose their job while on parental leave, they will not have access to EI because they won't have accumulated the number of hours required to qualify.

We need to do remedy this, because Bill C-44, which seeks to do something positive by giving women an additional right, does not extend that right to those who lose their job while on leave. They will be penalized for having lost their job and will therefore have one less right.

A government that describes itself as feminist should care about protecting women who are at the mercy of an uncertain job market. It's hard enough when one person in a couple loses their job. Imagine how hard it is for a single mother who loses her job and is left with no income.

It is outrageous for a woman to lose her job and have no income simply for having a child. That indirectly discriminates against women, and the government has an obligation to do something about it.

I fear I will be told that the amendment broadens the scope of the act and is therefore out of order. As a member of a non-recognized party, I do not have the right to a second turn in order to convince you. I therefore call on another member at the table to appeal the decision if my amendment is ruled out of order. It does not broaden the scope of the act or change the nature of the benefits. It does not create a new benefit.

All the amendment does is clarify the nature of the new benefit that Bill C-44 introduces. It is simply adding a definition, and the act already allows for this kind of thing. It is possible to go back further than the last 52 weeks in the case of preventive withdrawal, sick leave and compassionate leave. The government has made an exception in those circumstances, but not for parental leave.

The sole purpose of the amendment is to protect mothers who lose their jobs, as well as their children.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses joining us.

The amendment pertains to EI parental benefits. As the witnesses explained to the committee, the changes in Bill C-44 would make it possible for parents to extend the parental benefit period while receiving the same amount. If I'm not mistaken, they would have a choice between taking 12 months or 18 months, so rather than collecting 55% of their salary, which is already quite low in the NDP's view, they would collect just 33% over a longer period. In that sense, the measure isn't particularly helpful.

That said, in order to respect the bill's intent, I propose that the decision be revocable, and that's what amendment NDP-16 seeks to do.

It's fairly short, so I'll read you part of it:

(1.4) An election made under subsection (1.1) or 152.05(1.1) may be revoked by a major attachment claimant or an individual, as the case may be, and a new election made, in which case it is binding on the claimant, on the individual, on both claimants or on the claimant and the individual.

In that case, if the claimant's situation changed along the way and it was possible for them to return to work sooner, they could. They would still be entitled to receive the amount equivalent to 55% of their salary over 12 months. If, however, they could return to work, circumstances permitting, the period would be shortened.

I asked whether that scenario would be possible, and the answer wasn't no. Would it make things be a bit more complicated from an administrative standpoint? Of course.

Nevertheless, I don't think the administrative complexity is a major hurdle, given that the measure would give claimants greater flexibility. I think we can deal with a bit of complexity in order to do right by Canadians, whose situations can vary from claimant to claimant.

That is the purpose of amendment NDP-16. I hope my colleagues will support it. Even though the measure isn't perfect, it could help by allowing for a bit more flexibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll come to order and start where we left off at division 8, clause 192 of Bill C-44.

The amendment BQ-6 is inadmissible because it's contrary to the principle of the bill established at second reading. However, you can speak to it.

We will not deal with it as an amendment, but you do have the right to speak to your amendment. If you want to make your point, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, in the same vein, you could rule the amendment out of order. I don't really see the connection with Bill C-44 and its scope. I don't know where my colleague's comments are coming from. So I would like to see you rule on the admissibility of the amendment.

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

To reply to my colleagues, I would say first that we, the members of unrecognized parties, cannot table motions in committee.

However, we can make direct requests to the PBO and I would like to verify with Mr. Sutherland the circumstances that will allow us to continue to do so. We can ask him for help when we table private members' bills, but this won't be possible otherwise, according to the other provisions of the bill. That is not what we want.

To answer my Conservative colleague on the fact that the PBO is free to chart his course, I will give you an example. We asked for an analysis of Muskrat Falls regarding the word “doit”, or “shall”. He told us that he could do that, but that it was not among his priorities and that it would not happen for a year and a half, but that he acknowledged the request. As things stand, the PBO is free to set his own program; we want him to remain free. According to the wording in Bill C-44, he will remain free, because he must manage his priorities; however, second-class members will become pariahs, and we don't want that to happen.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to clarify something.

In Bill C-44, it's already saying “shall”. I don't know if you noticed it, but the amendment of my colleague doesn't change the word “shall”. It's already in Bill C-44, on page 81, proposed section 79.2(1)(c). That's what the amendment is proposing to change, but he's not proposing to change the word “shall”, as it's already in the bill. I don't know why we're debating the word “shall” here.

I just wanted to say a few words to support my Bloc Québécois colleague on this, because this is in keeping with what I was saying earlier. We want to broaden the powers of MPs regarding requests they may make to the PBO concerning any topic of public interest under federal jurisdiction. I just wanted to mention that I support his amendment.

As for the restrictions imposed on the parliamentary budget officer, earlier I proposed an amendment that would list the reasons why the PBO could refuse a request. These are very specific reasons that concern very particular circumstances. This also answers my Conservative colleague's question on this.

I support the amendment and I hope that my colleagues here today will support it as well.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said earlier, I'm going to discuss amendments BQ-3 and BQ-4 together since they are in the same spirit, although the amendments are made to different provisions of the bill.

This concerns the PBO. We are concerned by the curtailment of the independence of his research. This is also mentioned in other amendments. In this regard, I wish to congratulate my colleague Greg Fergus of the Liberal Party for the excellent interview he gave to the newspaper Le Devoir last weekend. Consequently, I believe I will have the support of Liberal members for this amendment, which concerns the possibility members have of submitting study requests to the PBO.

As you know, until now members could submit any request or ask any question of the parliamentary budget officer. Bill C-44 eliminates this possibility. The purpose of amendments BQ-3 and BQ-4 is to restore it.

There are two categories of members in the House of Commons: those who are members of a recognized party and those who are members of an unrecognized or independent party. There really are two categories of members. As members of an unrecognized party, we do not have research budgets. The Liberal Party, which forms the government, has access to all public servants. The members of a recognized party have access to millions of dollars to do research. We have nothing, and we have to make do on our own. When we have to study an omnibus bill like this one, it's very cumbersome. We also don't have access to analysis reports that are presented to the committee. We asked to have access to the point-by-point analysis of Bill C-44 prepared by the analyst, but this request was denied since we are not a part of the committee. We have to do all this work on our own. We can only count on our own means. At least we still could rely on the parliamentary budget officer, but now Bill C-44 removes that possibility. I implore you to restore this.

I deplore the fact that there are two categories of members in Ottawa. Being placed in a second category of members is one thing, but I would like to avoid being made a pariah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

The amendment is to page 81 of Bill C-44.

First of all, the amendment defines the mandate of the parliamentary budget officer, who will be able to provide, on his or her own initiative, independent analyses of the topics mentioned previously.

In addition, the amendment states that the reports are not an exhaustive list and that the PBO may prepare other types of reports.

The amendment also removes a provision which alluded to the approval of the Speakers of the two Houses, a change that is extremely important to us.

The amendment also specifies that members may directly submit to the PBO requests on the financial cost of any proposal that relates to any matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction, rather than strictly requests concerning measures the member is considering submitting to the House or the Senate.

It was made clear in discussions with witnesses that appeared before this committee that because of the wording of Bill C-44 with regard to the changes concerning the position of parliamentary budget officer, it would be more difficult for members and senators to submit requests to him regarding studies or cost assessments. Amendment NDP-10 resolves this problem. Indeed, the wording of the bill is an issue, since it limits the power of MPs and senators—senators must be included in the conversation—to submit requests to the PBO. The problem has been pointed out. This amendment aims to ensure that parliamentarians may make requests on any topic they have in mind without this being necessarily directly related to a measure they intend to propose.

With regard to my friendly amendment, I repeated the statements the PBO himself made in his draft bill.

I hope to obtain the support of my colleagues so that the mandate of the PBO can be broadened as much as possible, and so that members and senators may submit requests to him on a range of topics. The idea here is to not limit the requests members and senators could submit to him.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, the goal of my amendment is simply to ensure that the French version matches the English version. I move that clause 128 of Bill C-44 be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 78 of the French version with the following:

tant sur les politiques macroéconomiques et budgétaires — dans le but d'améliorer la qualité des débats parle-

That's what I want changed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could we deal with clauses 115 through to 127? Does anybody have any problems with that?

(Clauses 115 to 127 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 128)

Thank you to the witnesses for coming forward.

We have an amendment, LIB-1. I would say first that if LIB-1 is adopted, the question cannot be put on NDP-1 due to line conflicts in the budget bill.

Who is moving this? Mr. Fergus.