Bill C-86 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax and related measures by
(a) introducing rules intended to provide greater certainty with respect to various tax consequences arising from certain foreign divisive reorganizations;
(b) ensuring that the existing cross-border anti-surplus stripping rule cannot be circumvented through transactions involving the use of partnerships or trusts;
(c) introducing rules to prevent misuse of the foreign accrual property income regime through the use of tracking interests involving foreign affiliates;
(d) ensuring consistency between the trading or dealing in indebtedness rules and the investment business rules within the foreign accrual property income regime;
(e) ensuring that the at-risk rules apply appropriately at each level of a tiered partnership structure;
(f) providing that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness can determine international operational missions for the purpose of the deduction available for income earned by members of the Canadian Forces or police officers on such missions;
(g) amending the synthetic equity arrangement rules and securities lending arrangement rules to prevent the artificial generation of losses through the use of equity-based financial instruments;
(h) ensuring that social assistance payments under certain programs do not preclude individuals from receiving the Canada Child Benefit;
(i) ensuring that an individual who is eligible to receive the Canada Workers Benefit can receive the benefit without having to claim it;
(j) introducing a refundable tax credit for the purposes of the climate action incentive;
(k) providing allocation rules for losses applied against Part IV taxes;
(l) preventing the creation of artificial losses on shares held as mark-to-market property by financial institutions;
(m) revising the rules relating to the non-partisan political activities of charities;
(n) ensuring that a taxpayer is subject to a three-year extended reassessment period in respect of any income, loss or other amount arising in connection with a foreign affiliate of the taxpayer;
(o) providing the Canada Revenue Agency with an extended reassessment period of an additional three years, to the extent that the reassessment relates to the adjustment of a loss carryback for transactions involving a taxpayer and non-resident non-arm’s length persons;
(p) extending the reassessment period of a taxpayer by the period of time during which a requirement for information or compliance order is contested;
(q) requiring that information returns in respect of a taxpayer’s foreign affiliates be filed within 10 months after the end of the taxpayer’s taxation year;
(r) enabling the disclosure of taxpayer and other confidential tax information to Canada’s bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty partners for the purposes of non-tax criminal investigations and prosecutions of certain serious crimes; and
(s) providing a deduction for employee contributions to the enhanced portion of the Quebec Pension Plan.
Part 1 also amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to, among other things, define the term “agreement” as applying, among other things, to tax information exchange agreements and tax treaties to which Canada is a party, and provide for orders to produce financial information for the purposes of investigation and prosecution of certain offences set out in subsection 462.‍48(1.‍1) of the Criminal Code. The enactment also amends paragraph 462.‍48(2)‍(c) of the Criminal Code to provide that information may also be gathered under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act and under the Excise Act, 2001.
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) replacing the requirement that GST/HST be collected on a sale of carbon emission allowances with a requirement that the purchaser self-assess that GST/HST;
(b) extending the assessment period for group registered education savings plan trusts that make a special relieving election in respect of their past HST liability;
(c)  introducing GST/HST rules in respect of investment limited partnerships;
(d) clarifying the intended tax policy of excluding books that are sold by a public service body from the GST/HST rebate for printed books;
(e) introducing amendments similar to those to the Income Tax Act to extend the assessment period of a person by the period of time during which a requirement for information or compliance order is contested; and
(f)  introducing amendments similar to those to the Income Tax Act to enable the disclosure of confidential information to Canada’s bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty partners, or to Canadian police officers, for the purposes of non-tax criminal investigations and prosecution of certain serious crimes.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures by
(a) broadening the refund regime in respect of excise tax on diesel fuel to allow a vendor to apply for a refund where a purchaser will use excise tax-paid diesel fuel to generate electricity, if certain conditions are met;
(b) introducing an anti-avoidance excise measure relating to the taxation of cannabis in respect of the rules establishing the value of a cannabis product on which an ad valorem duty is calculated;
(c)  introducing amendments to the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and the Excise Act, 2001 that are similar to those to the Income Tax Act to extend the assessment period of a person by the period of time during which a requirement for information or compliance order is contested;
(d) introducing amendments to the Excise Act, 2001 that are similar to those to the Income Tax Act to enable the disclosure of confidential information to Canada’s bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty partners, or to Canadian police officers, for the purposes of non-tax criminal investigations and prosecution of certain serious crimes; and
(e) making housekeeping amendments to the Excise Act, 2001 in order to ensure consistency between the English and French version of the legislation.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff in order to simplify it and reduce the administrative burden for Canadian businesses and the Government of Canada by consolidating similar tariff items that have the same tariff rates and removing end-use provisions where appropriate. The amendments also clarify existing tariff provisions and make other technical amendments.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to modify the calculation of the amount to be attributed for a year in which a contributor is a family allowance recipient and their first or second additional contributory period begins or ends.
Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things,
(a) establish thresholds below which the acquisition of control of certain entities, or the acquisition or increase of a substantial investment in them, does not require the approval of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions;
(b) allow financial institutions to invest in the Canadian business growth fund; and
(c) ensure that customers can provide consent electronically to receive electronic documents.
It also corrects a reference to the Insurance Companies Act in the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.
Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things,
(a) make technical amendments to clarify the method of calculating insured deposits, to remove outdated references, to repeal certain provisions not yet in force and to clarify that withdrawals made following the amalgamation of two or more member institutions or the continuance as a federal credit union will be considered to be made from pre-existing deposits and that the separation of accounts following the amalgamation is limited to a period of two years;
(b) exclude amounts borrowed by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation under paragraph 60.‍2(2)‍(c) of the Financial Administration Act from the calculation of the Corporation’s total principal indebtedness; and
(c) clarify that the liquidator of a member institution of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation must not apply the law of set-off or compensation to a claim related to insured deposits.
It also repeals two sections of the Financial System Review Act.
Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, clarify that providing legally privileged information to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions does not constitute a waiver of the privilege.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to remove the right of persons to decide not to proceed further with importing or exporting currency or monetary instruments that are required to be reported.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act to, among other things, allow for the application, within the offshore area, of the provincial greenhouse gas pricing regime and to confer powers and impose duties and functions on the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for the application of that regime. It also amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to provide that the provincial regime does not apply if the offshore area is mentioned in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to that Act. Finally, it amends the Offshore Health and Safety Act to postpone the repeal of certain regulations.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to set out criteria for identifying individuals with significant control over a corporation. The Division also sets out a requirement for a corporation that meets certain criteria to keep a register of individuals with significant control and requirements respecting the information to be recorded in it. Finally, the Division includes applicable offences and punishments.
Subdivision A of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Patent Act in order to
(a) provide a regulation-making authority for the establishment of requirements for written demands relating to patents;
(b) specify that an act committed for the purpose of experimentation relating to the subject matter of a patent is not an infringement of the patent and that licencing commitments that bind the owner of a standard-essential patent or the holder of a certificate of supplementary protection that sets out such a patent bind any subsequent owners or holders;
(c) expand the rights of a person in respect of a claim in a patent who meets the requirements to be considered a prior user;
(d) ensure that patent prosecution histories may be admissible into evidence for certain purposes;
(e) clarify when a late fee must be paid in respect of divisional applications as well as when the confidentiality period begins in the case where a request for priority is deemed never to have been made.
Subdivision B of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things,
(a) add bad faith as a ground of opposition to the registration of a trade-mark and for the invalidation of a trade-mark registration;
(b) prevent the owner of a registered trade-mark from obtaining relief for acts done contrary to section 19, 20 or 22 of that Act during the first three years after the trade-mark is registered unless the trade-mark was in use in Canada during that period or special circumstances exist that excuse the absence of use;
(c) clarify that the prohibitions in subparagraph 9(1)‍(n)‍(iii) and section 11 of that Act do not apply with respect to a badge, crest, emblem or mark that was the subject of a public notice of adoption and use as an official mark if the entity that made the request for the public notice is not a public authority or no longer exists; and
(d) modernize the conduct of various proceedings before the Registrar of Trade-marks, including by providing the Registrar with additional powers in such proceedings.
It also makes certain housekeeping amendments to provisions of the Trade-marks Act that are enacted by the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 and the Combating Counterfeit Products Act.
Subdivision C of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Copyright Act in order to specify that certain information is not permitted to be included within a notice under the notice and notice regime and to provide for a regulation-making power to prohibit further types of information from being included within such a notice.
Subdivision D of Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the College of Patent Agents and Trade-mark Agents Act. That Act establishes the College of Patent Agents and Trade-mark Agents, which is to be responsible for the regulation of patent agents and trade-mark agents in the public interest. That Act, among other things,
(a) requires that individuals obtain a licence in order to act as patent agents or trade-mark agents and that licensees comply with a code of professional conduct;
(b) authorizes the College’s Investigations Committee to receive complaints and conduct investigations into whether a licensee has committed professional misconduct or was incompetent;
(c) authorizes the College’s Discipline Committee to impose disciplinary measures if it decides that a licensee has committed professional misconduct or was incompetent; and
(d) creates new offences of claiming to be a patent agent or trade-mark agent and unauthorized representation before the Patent Office or the Office of the Registrar of Trade-marks.
That Subdivision also makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.
Subdivision E of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide that intellectual property users may preserve their usage rights when intellectual property rights are sold or disposed of in an insolvency proceeding or when the agreement relating to such property rights is disclaimed or resiliated in such a proceeding. It also amends the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to provide that intellectual property users may preserve their usage rights when intellectual property rights are sold or disposed of.
Subdivision F of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to provide that the head of a government institution may refuse to disclose, under either of those Acts, information that is subject to the privilege set out in section 16.‍1 of the Patent Act or section 51.‍13 of the Trade-marks Act. It makes a related amendment to the Pest Control Products Act.
Subdivision G of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to clarify that the National Research Council of Canada has the authority to dispose of all forms of intellectual property that it develops, including future rights to such property and to provide the Council with the authority to dispose of real, personal, movable and immovable property, complementing the current provision in the Act that allows it to acquire such property.
Subdivision H of Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Copyright Act in order to modernize the legislative framework relating to the Copyright Board so as to improve the timeliness and clarity of its proceedings and decision-making processes. More specifically, it repeals spent provisions and
(a) codifies the Board’s mandate and establishes decision-making criteria;
(b) establishes new timelines in respect of Board matters, including earlier filing dates for proposed tariffs and longer effective periods for approved tariffs, and empowers the Governor in Council to make additional timelines by regulation;
(c) formalizes case management of Board proceedings;
(d) reduces the number of matters that must be considered by the Board;
(e) streamlines procedural steps across different tariff contexts, maintaining differences between them only where necessary;
(f) amends relevant enforcement provisions, including the availability of statutory damages for certain parties in respect of Board-set royalty rates and enforcement of Board-set terms and conditions; and
(g) modernizes existing language and structure for greater clarity and consistency.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, increase the maximum number of weeks for which parental benefits may be paid if these benefits are divided between claimants. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, increase the aggregate amount of leave that may be taken by employees under sections 206.‍1 and 206.‍2 if that leave is divided between employees.
Division 9 of Part 4 enacts the Canadian Gender Budgeting Act in order to state the Government’s policy of promoting gender equality and inclusiveness by taking gender and diversity into consideration in the budget process. It also establishes related reporting requirements.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to strengthen provisions that apply to a bank or an authorized foreign bank in relation to the protection of customers and the public. It implements enhancements in the areas of corporate governance, responsible business conduct, disclosure and transparency, and redress. It also amends the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to strengthen the mandate of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and grant additional powers to that Agency.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Land Management Act to give effect to amendments to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management respecting, among other things, procedures for obtaining community approval of a land code, the lands to which a land code may apply, the addition of lands to First Nation land by order of the Minister and the transfer of capital moneys.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to, among other things,
(a) enable more Aboriginal organizations and First Nations to benefit from the provisions of the Act in order to strengthen their financial management systems and give them access to long-term financing;
(b) address certain administrative issues identified by the bodies established under the Act; and
(c) provide another option for First Nations to access moneys held by Her Majesty for their use and benefit.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Export and Import Permits Act to give the Minister of Foreign Affairs the authority to issue an import allocation for goods that are included on the Import Control List under subsection 5(6) of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 enacts the Pay Equity Act to establish a proactive process for the achievement of pay equity by the redressing of the systemic gender-based discrimination experienced by employees who occupy positions in predominantly female job classes. The new Act requires federal public and private sector employers that have 10 or more employees to establish and maintain a pay equity plan within set time frames so as to identify and correct differences in compensation between predominantly female and predominantly male job classes for which the work performed is of equal value. The new Act provides for the powers, duties and functions of a Pay Equity Commissioner, which include facilitating the resolution of disputes, conducting compliance audits and investigating disputes, objections and complaints, as well as making orders and imposing administrative monetary penalties for violations of that Act. The new Act also requires the Pay Equity Commissioner to report annually to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of the new Act.
Division 14 also amends the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to provide for the application of the Pay Equity Act to parliamentary employers with certain adaptations and without limiting the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate, the House of Commons and the members of those Houses.
It also makes the Minister of Labour responsible for the administration of the Federal Contractors Program for Pay Equity.
Finally, it makes related and consequential amendments to certain Acts and repeals the section of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 that enacts the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.
Subdivision A of Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) provide five days of paid leave for victims of family violence, a personal leave of five days with three paid days, an unpaid leave for court or jury duty and a fourth week of annual vacation with pay for employees who have completed at least 10 consecutive years of employment;
(b) eliminate minimum length of service requirements for leaves and general holiday pay and reduce the length of service requirement for three weeks of vacation with pay;
(c) prohibit differences in rate of wages based on the employment status of employees;
(d) address continuity of employment issues when a work, undertaking or business becomes federally regulated or in cases of contract retendering; and
(e) update group and individual termination provisions by increasing the minimum notice of termination.
Subdivision B of Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to allow the Minister of Labour to designate a Head of Compliance and Enforcement who will exercise most of the powers and perform most of the duties and functions that are related to the administration and enforcement of Parts II, III and IV of the Code.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to, among other things, increase the maximum amount that may be paid to an individual under the Act, expand the definition of eligible wages, expand the conditions under which a payment may be made under the Act and create additional requirements related to Her Majesty in right of Canada’s right of subrogation in respect of payments made under the Act.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement Act and the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act to harmonize the periods within which the reports under those Acts must be laid before Parliament in order to better communicate Canada’s international development efforts. It also repeals the definition of “official development assistance” in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act and confers the power to define this expression by regulation.
Division 17 also enacts the International Financial Assistance Act, which provides the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development with powers, duties and functions to support the delivery of a sovereign loans program, an international assistance innovation program and a federal international assistance program that promotes the mitigation of or adaptation to climate change through repayable contributions.
Division 18 of Part 4 enacts the Department for Women and Gender Equality Act which, among other things, establishes the Department for Women and Gender Equality to assist the Minister responsible for that department in exercising or performing the Minister’s powers, duties and functions that extend to and include all matters relating to women and gender equality, including the advancement of equality in respect of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression and the promotion of a greater understanding of the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors. It also contains transitional provisions. Finally, Division 18 makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 19 of Part 4 enacts the Addition of Lands to Reserves and Reserve Creation Act which authorizes a Minister, designated by the Governor in Council, to set apart lands as reserves for the use and benefit of First Nations. The Division also repeals Part 2 of the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act and the Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends section 715.‍42 of the Criminal Code to require the publication of any decision not to publish a remediation agreement or order related to that agreement and of any decision related to the review of such a decision, to specify that the court may make the first decision subject to a condition, including one related to the duration of non-publication, and to allow anyone to request a review of that decision.
Division 21 of Part 4 enacts the Poverty Reduction Act, which sets out two targets for poverty reduction in Canada.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the protection of the marine environment from the impacts of navigation and shipping activities;
(b) authorize the Minister of Transport to
(i) make an interim order to mitigate risks to marine safety or to the marine environment, and
(ii) exempt any person or vessel from the application of any provision of that Act or the regulations if doing so would allow the undertaking of research and development that may enhance marine safety or environmental protection;
(c) increase the maximum amount of an administrative penalty that the Governor in Council may fix by regulation;
(d) authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, pollution response officers and accompanying persons to enter private property in the case of a discharge of oil from a vessel or oil handling facility; and
(e) double the administration monetary penalties for certain violations.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to modernize the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, including, among other things,
(a) removing the Fund’s per-occurrence limit of liability;
(b) in the event that the Fund is depleted, authorizing the temporary transfer to the Fund of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund;
(c) modernizing the Fund’s levy so that the Fund is replenished by receivers and exporters of oil;
(d) ensuring that the Fund’s liability for claims for economic losses caused by oil pollution aligns with international conventions;
(e) providing that the Fund is liable for the costs and expenses incurred by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or any other person in respect of preventive measures when the occurrence for which those costs and expenses were incurred has not yet created a grave and imminent threat of causing oil pollution damage;
(f) authorizing the provision of up-front emergency funding out of the Fund to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for significant oil pollution incidents;
(g) creating an expedited, simplified process for small claims to the Fund; and
(h) providing for administrative monetary penalties for contraventions of specified or designated provisions under that Act.

Bill C-86—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

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

Madam Speaker, I have yet another response that I would like to go over at this point.

I rise today to respond to a point of order raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on October 31, 2018 with respect to the second budget implementation act, 2018 and the application of the Standing Order 69.1(2), which reads:

The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

My hon. colleague alleges that clauses 461, 462 and 535 to 625 of Bill C-86, which deal with the modernization of the Canada Labour Code are not mentioned in the budget and as such they would not be covered by the provisions of the Standing Order 69.1(2). In fact, the clauses identified by my colleague are referenced in the budget documents tabled on February 27, 2018. I would draw to the attention of members page 46 of budget 2018, which reads as follows:

To implement this change to the EI program, the Government proposes to amend the Employment Insurance Act. In addition, the Government proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while they are receiving EI parental benefits.

Furthermore, if we look at pages 51, 63 and 64 of budget 2017, we find multiple references to the government's announced intention to amend and modernize the Canada Labour Code. As such, I respectfully submit that the dispositions mentioned by the hon. member are all covered under the purview of Standing Order 69.1(2) and consequently should be subject to separate votes at second and third reading.

Time Allotted for Consideration of Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to respond to the question of privilege by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on October 31, 2018 with respect to his concerns that there would not be enough time to scrutinize Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

The bill was introduced on October 29, 2018, and debated in the House on Thursday and Friday last week. It was scheduled for debate last Wednesday as well, but the opposition preferred to debate points of order and questions of privilege.

We expect more debate at second reading, and I understand that the finance committee has a plan for considering the bill. As members well know, once the committee has completed its work, there will be a further opportunity to consider the bill at the report and third reading stages. The member should not prejudge the legislative process.

I would also note that my hon. colleague was able to speak to the bill at second reading, and I am sorry to note that the majority of his intervention centred on his belief that there would not be enough time to scrutinize the bill. If the member had these concerns, he should have used his speaking slot more judicially and could have highlighted his policy concerns with the bill rather than prejudge the process for considering the bill.

My hon. colleague in his statement alleges that his ability to perform his duties as a member of Parliament are inhibited by the size of Bill C-86. I would argue that the matter before us today is not a question of privilege but rather a matter of debate.

First of all, I would like to remind the member that he stated that “The government's intention to not even take the time to respect parliamentary procedure and work through the committee structure to allow for appropriate debate so that we get more than a few seconds of scrutiny of each clause and subclause, to my mind, indicates a breach of privilege.” However, the Standing Committee on Finance adopted a motion framing the study of Bill C-86 in committee and as such made sure that the proper parliamentary procedure is followed on this subject matter.

Second, my hon. colleague blamed the lack of time between introduction of the legislation and the scheduled debate for second reading of the bill for his lack of preparation. To that, I would remind the House that a technical briefing with officials was offered to members to help them understand the bill and get prepared in provision of the debates. Consequently, I respectfully submit that this is a debate as to the facts and as such does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2. The first one was a disaster, with its out of control spending, massive deficits, and the transparency and accountability killing vote 40 that is famous for being the $7 billion Liberal slush fund.

Like a sequel to a bad Hollywood movie, it makes us wonder if the first one was so bad, why would we bother with a second? Unfortunately, the government has bothered with a second, and Canadians are going to pay the price.

I want to call the bill the “Demosthenes bill”, after an Athenian scholar who said, “why nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.” That sums up the Liberals' belief in their actions so well. They sit and claim they have made record investments across the country, that there is employment growth here and there, that they have this and that national strategy to fix everything. Let us look beyond the hyperbole. Let us look beyond the self-deceit and see what is really going on.

Part 1 of the bill is an omnibus bill with four different parts and 23 different divisions—yes, 23 different divisions. Five different divisions of these 23 amend multiple acts, so even the omnibus bill has omnibuses inside the omnibus.

What does liberal.ca, the website say about omnibus bills? It says:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating proposals. We will...bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

Did it happen? Of course not. It is quite remarkable that the Liberal Party is so obsessed with the previous prime minister. If in every sentence of theirs they do not mention the middle class or feminism, they will mention Harper. It makes me wonder if Liberals go to bed at night and check under the bed for the Harper bogeyman.

We all know omnibus bills are bad, so I want to quote a few members from across the way. Here is one:

This omnibus budget bill is yet another example of Conservatives steam-rolling democracy to force unpopular, non-budgetary measures through Parliament at record speed without the necessary scrutiny.

Who was that? It was the current President of the Treasury Board, the very man behind the vote 40 Liberal slush fund, the largest assault on parliamentary accountability and oversight in history. This again is from the man who puts his hand over his heart and complains about accountability, yet the $7 billion will not show up in the Public Accounts.

The Public Accounts came out just last week and are detailed to the point of listing a $4 coffee purchased by a bureaucrat while overseas with the Prime Minister on his trip to Israel. How much of that seven billion dollars is going to be detailed as such? Not one penny. One-third of one billion dollars is set aside for Phoenix, supposedly to fix it. The government is negotiating behind closed doors for a payout of public servants affected by Phoenix, which I will probably support. Is the money going to be used for that? The Liberals will not say and Canadians will never know. All it shows is a lump sum line in the Public Accounts.

I want to mention some other comments on omnibus bills by the other side. The current Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said:

It is difficult, really, in the time available to do justice to a bill like this, because once again we have a bill that has a huge variety of measures. Some of them are new policy measures and some of them are not even in the budget speech. To actually do justice is very difficult.

Our colleague across the way from Winnipeg North, whom I am sure is going to ask questions about this, said:

When we take a look at this massive budget bill, as I said earlier, the government is making changes to dozens of pieces of legislation through the back door by passing it through a budget implementation bill, when in fact it should be stand-alone legislation.

Omnibus bills are bad, unless one is a Liberal, in which case omnibus bills are good, because they are the good guys.

I want to look at the Liberals' self-deceit about how good the economy is. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released his economic and fiscal outlook. I want to talk about the Liberals' self-deceit about their transparency. The PBO has asked repeatedly for access to the request for proposal for the combat ship program that Irving is doing.

Yesterday, we asked the President of the Treasury Board, who oddly is under a dark cloud for his interference on behalf of the Irvings with respect to the shipbuilding program, if he would release the RFP. The PBO has not asked for anything special. His office is allowed to access that information under an act of Parliament. When asked if his department would release it, the President of the Treasury Board said he would have to check with someone else.

In committee, we asked the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility if she would release it. She did not know.

We asked the Minister of National Defence in the committee of the whole if he would release it, and with hand over heart, he replied he did not know.

The PBO says this is going to cost taxpayers $60 billion. Other insiders say it could cost as much as $100 billion. Yet the government will not release what is required.

I am going to go back to the economic and fiscal outlook, which notes that the GDP growth rate is actually dropping. Next year it will be 1.8% and the years after that it will drop to 1.5%. That is half of the global GDP growth rate, so we are lagging behind the rest of the world by half. We are behind the U.S. We are behind our allies. We are behind the advanced economies, as noted by the IMF.

The PBO also notes that residential investment is driving our economy, but also expects a significant correction to residential investments in the coming years.

With respect to the labour market report, the PBO notes that workplace participation rate, the number of people who are working, has dropped in percentage terms since the Liberals came to power. Workforce participation by both men and women has dropped under the Liberal government.

Our unemployment rate is at a record low, but we our underperforming our allies. We are underperforming big bad Trump. The Liberal government is doing worse than him. We are underperforming our G7 allies and the other advanced economies. We are below the OECD average. The OECD covers a bunch of basket case countries as well, and we are below the average in terms of unemployment. Well over half of the jobs created in this country this year were in the public service. Public sector employees perform valuable work, but it is not a sustainable path. Canada's unemployment rate is 49% higher than the U.S. rate right now. We are 29% above the G7 unemployment rate.

From the government, we hear middle class this and middle class that. The PBO notes that when we look at wage gains, wages for in the bottom 10% have actually risen, which is great, and those of the top 10% have risen too, but for those in the middle class, the middle 50%, wage growth in percentage terms has stagnated. Therefore, in regard to everything the Liberals have said about things being great for the middle class, the fact is government has actually done nothing for them. This is more self-deceit.

The government talks a lot about its national housing strategy. I am going to quote from the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy run by the former PBO Kevin Page. This again goes to the self-deceit. The government says it will provide $40 billion for a national housing strategy. It says it is going to do so much. This is the quote:

There is one concerning tidbit around the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, specifically regarding the back-end-loaded nature of the federal funding. The full 10-year plan outlines $15.9 billion for the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, yet only $1.3 billion is budgeted for the first 5 years. And by the end of the 10 years, only $5.1 billion has been budgeted....

This all begs the question: Where is the proposed $40 billion National Housing Strategy funding? By following the funding throughout the years and tracking what is “new” money, we have painted a picture of what the NHS looks like apart from the glossy document that accompanied its announcement.

This is what we see again, this self-deceit of the government, which repeats its mantra again and again, but it is only fooling itself.

The budget implementation act no. 2 is a mess and disgrace and will not serve Canadians, just like its forefather, budget implementation act no. 1, did not.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I should tell you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood.

I am delighted to rise in the House today to discuss an important element of Bill C-86, the budget implementation act.

The element I want to talk about is intended to strengthen a measure that we have already discussed, one that is especially important for low-income workers. I am referring to the Canada workers benefit.

With this bill, the government will make it easier for this benefit to reach workers who are entitled to it. Thanks to this bill, everyone who is entitled to the Canada workers benefit will receive it when they file their tax return.

Our government knows that Canadians are working hard to build a better life for themselves and their families. Some low-income Canadians are working two or three jobs. They work really hard. Like all Canadians, these workers deserve to be rewarded for their hard work with a fair chance to succeed.

With budget 2018, our government took a step in that direction. This is one more step towards growing our economy in a way that benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it.

In its most recent budget, our government introduced the new Canada workers benefit, which will come into force in 2019. It is an enhanced version of the working income tax benefit.

This new benefit will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers. It will not only increase benefits for those who received it for their employment income, but also expand the income range to make more workers eligible. For example, with this new benefit, a low-income worker who earns $15,000 per year will collect up to $500 more in benefits in 2019 than in 2018.

That is the kind of real help that will benefit over two million Canadians. Most importantly, we believe this measure will lift about 74,000 Canadians out of poverty by 2020. That is not all. In budget 2018, our government also increased the maximum benefit provided through the Canada workers benefit disability supplement by an additional $160 to offer greater support to Canadians with disabilities who face financial barriers to entering the workforce.

This benefit will also be issued automatically, which is good news.

However, it is possible to do even better. The bill that we are discussing today will make it easier for workers to access the benefits they are entitled to, as our government promised in the last budget.

Accordingly, the bill proposes to make changes that will allow the Canada Revenue Agency to calculate the benefit for any taxpayers who did not apply for it on their income tax return.

It is not a problem if people forget or fail to complete the benefit schedule of their income tax return. The Canada Revenue Agency will still do the calculation. If the person is entitled to the Canada workers benefit, he or she will receive it. Thanks to the CRA's new automatic enrolment system, as of 2019, all those who are entitled to the Canada workers benefit will receive it, whether they applied for it or not. That is very good news for Canadians.

In closing, I would like to point out that this is not the only good news. The Canada workers benefit is just one of many measures to help those who need it most.

There is also the Canada child benefit, a key initiative for strengthening the middle class. Thanks to this measure, nine in 10 families now have more money in their pockets. Over three million Canadian families are entitled to over $23 billion in annual payments.

This money will help them give their children a good start in life by providing them a safe environment, healthy food, and the opportunity to participate in recreational activities such as music and sports.

The Canada child benefit has helped lift more than half a million people in Canada, including more than 300,000 children, out of poverty. In addition, this benefit has been indexed to cost-of-living increases since July, two years sooner than initially planned.

Another measure is the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors living alone. This increase improves the financial security of nearly 900,000 Canadian seniors, 70% of whom are women. This measure is very much appreciated in my riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

These are excellent examples of smart, responsible investments made by the Government of Canada in the interest of families, communities and the economy. These investments leave more money in the hands of those who need it most, which helps increase Canadians' confidence in what the future has in store for us.

As the economy keeps growing and high-paying jobs are created, our government will continue to ensure that all Canadians share in the success and benefit from it.

This budget implementation bill will help more Canadians who could use a hand up by ensuring that everyone who is entitled to the Canada workers benefit receives this additional assistance.

I want to add that, for my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and Canadians across the country, our government has created more than 500,000 full-time jobs since we came to power.

The unemployment rate is at an historic 40-year low. Our plan is working.

In the 2015 election, Canadians had a choice between a plan offering austerity and cuts and our government's plan to invest in the middle class and build an economy that works for everyone. The outcome speaks for itself.

As I said earlier, wages are going up, consumer and business confidence is strong, and Canada's economy is among the highest-performing in the G7. That is no small feat.

Middle-class Canadians see first-hand that our plan is working. By this time next year, a typical family of four will have over $2,000 more in their pockets. Two thousand dollars is a lot of money to spend in our economy.

Budget 2018 is the next step in our plan. It supports our government's people-oriented approach and will ensure that every Canadian has a real and fair chance at success.

As part of budget 2018, our government continues to work on building an equal, competitive, sustainable and fair Canada. In light of such positive results, I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this bill.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-86, the government's budget implementation act. This massive 800-page omnibus bill contains thousands of clauses, and there are seven separate stand-alone pieces of legislation inside it. I am hoping Canadians can understand why this type of bill presents a real danger to our democracy.

Canadians elect us to come to come to Ottawa and debate issues and create laws that will help them and their families. Real debate requires that all participants have all the information they need. The facts should be accessible. Access to the information should be transparent.

I think most Canadians will understand that governments present these kinds of mammoth documents to make it more difficult to analyze what the government is up to. This of course makes it more difficult to have a full and informed debate. Who suffers? It is Canadians who suffer. It is the people who elect us to represent them who suffer. I hope Canadians and all our constituents can see through what the government is up to in dropping such a thick and complicated bill on the table.

This is a bill that is supposed to implement some of the measures introduced in the government's budget from eight months ago. On the face of it, that is not unusual. What is unusual and what is concerning is that the bill introduces new and additional measures not mentioned in the original budget documents published last February. This is very concerning. These are new measures that should at least be put into separate bills, introduced in the House, and then fully debated and considered by all of us right here. However, that is not what is happening here.

It is most sensible that Canadians would wonder what is at play when a government behaves like this. Are the Liberals afraid of having their measures and ideas debated? Are they afraid of criticism? Are they trying to hide something? The answer to all those questions is probably, yes, and I am willing to count on Canadians, our constituents, to decide for themselves.

Yesterday my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby pointed out just a few of the measures that we could not find anywhere in the original budget documents. These include clauses 461 to 462, which refer to some rather important legislation relating to protection for workers and workers' rights; and clauses 535 to 625, which deal with the Canada Labour Code and workers' health and safety. I am sure we will find more examples as we continue to examine this massive bill.

I want to point out that we are not necessarily against these measures. The point is that the size of the bill prevents us from being able to take time to study these new measures in-depth. That is unfair to all of us as members in the House and unfair to the constituents we represent.

Another example of measures introduced in this bill and not mentioned in any of the budget document is the proposed changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. These measures have been described to me as housekeeping changes, which I suspect they probably are. They would clarify some issues with Canada's bankruptcy laws to protect commercial licence-holders and corporations. I do not necessarily oppose these changes being made. However, I have two concerns.

First, these changes were not mentioned in any of the budget documentation I have seen, so why are they in legislation meant to enact that budget? It is very much like they were just slipped in, perhaps, with the hope that no one would notice, and that is wrong. All members of Parliament need and deserve proper notice of any change to Canadian laws being suggested through the House. Proper notice would allow us not only the chance to analyze and understand the changes, but also an opportunity to offer any amendment that would make those changes better or more effective. Sliding amendments into a massive bill robs us of all of our opportunity.

My second concern is why the Liberals decided to propose amendments to Canada's bankruptcy laws, which was never mentioned in February, while failing to take on the items they did mention.

In a section of February's budget titled, “Protecting Canadians' Pensions”, the government promised to take action using a whole-of-government, evidence-based approach toward addressing retirement security for all Canadians. It also promised there would be consultations so the government could decide on what its approach would be. I think we all expected those consultations would be done by now. However, as far as we know, they have not even started and there is no plan for when they will start. Why would the government not have completed those consultations and included provisions in this current bill? That is what we expected. That is what Canadian retirees expected too.

It sure seems that the government is happy to make changes to help big corporations and wealthy executives, but when it comes down to protecting people's pensions, the Liberals are not able to act. They say “sorry, it's too complicated”.

We all know that Canadian companies use our inadequate bankruptcy laws to effectively gain concessions from their employees and escape responsibility for huge pension deficits they themselves have created. Workers are then left with the threat of reduced pensions and health care benefits.

We all know that over the last 10 years there has been an increased focus on the problems with Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and insolvency laws. The cases of Nortel, Wabush Mines, Stelco and, most recently, Sears have brought into national focus the fact that workers at large companies that go bankrupt are offered very little protection, while investors, banks, and sometimes international hedge fund operators make out like bandits.

We all know that one of the most offensive things that happens during bankruptcy proceedings is that executives give themselves huge bonuses. The very people who ran the company into the ground get big rewards, and it is done because the law allows it to happen. Nortel executives got over $200 million in bonuses, Sears executives $9.2 million and Stelco executives $1.2 million while at the same time pensioners were asked to take cuts to their medical benefits.

When I go across Canada for town halls, I have tell the people this. They always come back and ask if I am kidding them, and I have to tell them that I am not, that this really happens, because the law allows it to happen. We know these abuses are not right and that our laws allow for the theft of workers' and retirees' pensions and benefits. Canadian workers and retirees know it is not right, and they are demanding that the laws be changed. Therefore, Canadians need to ask themselves why the government refuses to act to protect them.

It is not too late. The government can take action now. The NDP will be pushing the government to do the right thing, to amend the bill and put an end to pension theft. Canadian workers and their families deserve no less.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for asking it in French.

I would have liked to see some environmentally sustainable measures as well as innovative, keystone projects in Bill C-86. The government is rather tight-fisted in that respect, and yet it had no problem buying a 65-year-old pipeline and investing so much of Canadian taxpayers' money in that.

Why are there no innovative, keystone projects moving towards green energy, projects that would bring people together and give them hope?

A couple weeks ago, I attended a conference organized by the Association forestière Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean around the theme of the boreal forest and climate change. All the researchers who presented unanimously agreed that we have less than 12 years. We are at T minus 11 years. Urgent action is needed.

In an omnibus bill that is over 850 pages long, I would have expected to find concrete measures as well as innovative, keystone projects to fight climate change and also to give future generations some hope.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful question.

As he just mentioned, the bill has 850-odd pages. We have been talking about pay equity for more than 42 years. If pay equity is so important, why did they not split Bill C-86? Why not introduce a single bill on pay equity? That would allow all Canadians to follow the debates, read the bill and really understand it.

This is an omnibus bill. The government promised us transparency, but that is not what we are seeing. In committee, members will have 13 hours to ask questions. We have done the math. Given the number of pages, clauses and paragraphs—a number we cannot exactly pin down—we will have an average of nine seconds to read and understand each clause. We have also just learned that time allocation will be invoked. That is unacceptable.

Therefore, if the pay equity bill was that important to our feminist Prime Minister, the Liberals would have introduced it as a stand-alone bill and we could have debated it here in the House all in one go.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Hamilton Mountain.

The first thing I want to address is the length of this bill, which is 850 pages long and has many clauses. We asked all kinds of questions about how many clauses and subclauses are in the bill, but we still do not have an answer. This is unacceptable and shows a lack of respect for opposition parliamentarians and the general public.

The Liberals are clearly hoping the opposition will drown trying to wade through this massive bill. This tactic is nothing new, as we saw the same thing with the former Conservative government. However, at the time, the Liberals were vocal critics of such bills. Now, they are doing the same thing. As I have said many times in the House, the more things change, the more they stay the same, unfortunately.

Omnibus bills subvert and evade the normal principles of parliamentary review of legislation. The longer a bill is, the harder it is for opposition members to do their due diligence, since they do not have enough time to study the bill carefully.

As an aside, I want to thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for yesterday's point of order on this topic.

At any rate, this undemocratic strategy does nothing to improve the low regard Canadians have for politicians. I do not know how the Liberals intend to regain Canadians' confidence when they use this type of abusive tactic after promising a more transparent democracy. The way they are rushing through the study of Bill C-86 is anything but transparent.

When we examine Bill C-86 more closely, we quickly see that it fails to take bold action to address the injustices faced by thousands of Canadians. One of those injustices is pension theft. We have talked about that a lot over the past few days, and I know that my colleague from Hamilton just talked about it, but as the labour critic, this is an issue that I care about, so I wanted to take some time to talk about it in my speech.

We need to protect pensions. When a company declares bankruptcy, banks and investors make off with employees' retirement pensions through a clever financial shell game. We need to fix this major problem. This happened to Sears employees recently, and nothing was done.

There are people in my riding of Jonquière who worked for Sears. Unfortunately, they suffered a tremendous amount of stress because they did not know what would happen to their pensions and benefits. The store shut down overnight. There was nothing left. I have spoken with these former Sears employees, and they still have serious concerns.

Tolerating these dishonest tricks is a real moral failure on the government's part. The Liberals have the opportunity to make a real difference, but they refuse to do anything about this.

Another glaring example of the Liberals' lack of will is the missed opportunity to make drugs more affordable for Canadians and save billions of dollars by bringing in national pharmacare. Canada is the only country in the G7 to have a medicare system that does not cover prescription drugs.

For years, successive commissions of inquiry led by experts have urged Canada to include drug costs in our health care program. Despite these appeals, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have made little progress on drug insurance because they lacked the will to effect change. Unfortunately, that is still the case with Bill C-86.

Public drug insurance plans in Canada have evolved and now offer relatively full coverage, but only for part of the population. The problem is not insignificant: an estimated 10% to 20% of our population does not have any health insurance.

Even if people are lucky enough to have a private drug plan, they still have to pay the deductible.

The NDP is outraged that many Canadians are forced to cut up their pills or interrupt their treatments because of the cost of drugs. That is absolutely shameful.

Canadians deserve to get the drugs they need without putting their savings, wages or health at risk. That is their right and the Liberals have denied them that right by failing to include this key issue in Bill C-86.

Another example is compensation for dairy producers who were sacrificed in free trade agreements and for the steel and aluminum industry that has been hit for months by the tariffs imposed by the United States.

As I mentioned several times, dairy producers in my riding of Jonquière are waiting for compensation. In the last agreement, for example, dairy producers had to innovate and pay out of pocket to access a program, but that is another story. There has been a 10% breach in supply management, which will result in considerable losses. Generations of farm families will be affected. I hope that the government will do something for them. The Liberals had the opportunity to do something for these families in Bill C-86, but they did nothing.

Now I would like to talk about the steel and aluminum industries because a number of small businesses in my riding are being hit by the tariffs the Americans have not withdrawn. Companies are losing lots of business and laying people off because of those tariffs.

I had the opportunity to hear from witnesses in committee this week. They came to tell us about the impact of U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, and they all said the same thing.

The government is trying to do the right thing, but the reality is that the Liberals are taking too long to compensate companies for the unjust and unjustified American tariffs. Wait times are long, and it takes a lot of time and resources to fill out the necessary forms. As everyone knows, these businesses are crucial to economic growth, to the survival of good Canadian jobs and to the prosperity of our communities.

Now back to agriculture and supply management.

One after another, the government opened three breaches in supply management, but Bill C-86 is absolutely silent on the subject.

I had a chance to talk to people from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture who told me they are in dire need of cash. Farmers are not interested in programs. That bears repeating often to make sure the government here in the House of Commons gets the message and does something to safeguard our family farms and our food sovereignty.

The government is also putting our rural communities on the back burner when it comes to integration and development. The Liberals are showing once again that they do not have the courage to address the inequalities between rural regions and urban centres. Some very simple examples of that include mobile phones and high-speed Internet access. Here in Ottawa, it is very easy. When we turn on our phones, we have everything we need. We can access information and download things very quickly. However, things are very different in rural areas. The municipalities of Lamarche and Labrecque are being penalized and that is hindering their expansion and making it harder to keep people from leaving.

Time is running out, but I still have a lot to say about this very large bill.

A number of aspects of the bill, including pay equity and pensions, should have been dealt with separately. These are very critical, very important issues. My colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby asked that the bill be split, and that is what should have been done.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address this chamber on the provisions of Bill C-86 that amend the Canada Business Corporation Act, the CBCA, and to state my support for Bill C-86.

Corporations are a pillar of the economy. Despite drastic changes to the marketplace, they remain engines of economic growth, innovation and jobs. In almost all cases, corporations serve the legitimate commercial purpose of their owners, the vast majority of whom are hard-working Canadians. In particular, corporations are a conduit through which individuals can make strategic investments and take calculated risks without jeopardizing their personal financial security and that of their families. In return, this helps to ensure the free flow of commerce, innovation, employment and prosperity.

Even though the word “corporation” tends to make us think of multinational companies headquartered in giant office towers, the reality is that most corporations are small businesses with relatively simple ownership and governance structures. I owned one of those prior to becoming a member of Parliament in Richmond Hill, and 85% of the small businesses in my riding could fit into that model very well.

Unfortunately, as with many things, it is also possible for a few ill-intentioned individuals to use corporations for improper or illegal ends. For example, an individual could attempt to hide illicit activities, such as money laundering, tax evasion or even terrorist financing by concealing these activities within the operation of a legally separate and distinct corporate entity with a byzantine ownership structure. Needless to say, any abuse of this sort in Canada harms Canada's reputation as a safe, fair and competitive place for doing business and casts the exceedingly far greater number of legitimate Canadian businesses in an unjust light.

I am sure that members are all aware of the recent reports about snow washing, the practice of using Canada as a base for corporate criminal activities, hiding behind our country's solid international standing. Our government is committed to curbing and deterring this type of abuse.

Canada is a member of the Financial Action Task Force, the FATF, an intergovernmental body that has set standards on transparency for corporate control and beneficial owners, that is, those who truly and ultimately own or control businesses, no matter what intermediaries they may have in place. The FATF standards require that appropriate authorities have timely access to accurate and current information about who ultimately owns and controls corporations in order to combat those criminal activities that can be perpetrated through the misuse of corporations and their ownership structures.

While we have made important efforts to curb these bad practices through our financial and taxation regimes, neither our federal corporate statute, the CBCA, nor its provincial and territorial counterparts require corporations to assemble information about their beneficial ownership. It is important that we reinforce our efforts in other areas with these changes to corporate statutes.

I mentioned the provincial and territorial laws just now. Incorporation is an area of responsibility divided between the two levels of government and it so happens that the vast majority of Canadian corporations, some 90% approximately, are incorporated at the provincial and territorial levels, leaving only some 10% of businesses incorporated federally under the CBCA. The provincial and territorial corporate laws under which the 90% of corporations fall are very similar in substance to the CBCA, but Parliament cannot alter them.

This means that any effort to correct a gap in corporate law has to be a team effort. The government must collaborate with the 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions to make similar improvements in each respective statute; otherwise, we run the risk of asymmetrical regulation that can be exploited by wrongdoers.

Our 2017 budget recognized this, calling for collaboration between the levels of government to devise a strategy to shore up and strengthen our corporate landscape, and collaborate they did. A working group representing all 14 Canadian jurisdictions gave us an exemplary model of intergovernmental co-operation over many months, overcoming the idiosyncrasies of different legislation and operations to put together a viable plan to take an important first step in bringing more transparency to Canadian corporate structures.

Following on from the recommendations of the working group, in December 2017, all of the Canadian finance ministers agreed in principle to pursue legislative amendments to their corporate laws, with a view to putting them in place by the summer of 2019. These changes will require corporations to hold accurate, up-to-date information on their beneficial owners. Our 2018 budget formalized this commitment at the federal level.

That brings us to the proposed amendments before us today. These would only affect the CBCA, of course, but given the finance ministers' agreement, we expect the provinces and territories to follow suit in amending their constituent corporate statutes.

What the bill proposes is for privately held corporations to compile a list of those individuals who exercise significant control over them, whether through direct ownership, beneficial ownership, or other means. The law will set out criteria for who falls into this class of significant control, principally by way of thresholds as to how many and what kind of shares an individual controls.

Corporations will need to find some basic information about those individuals, some demographic data, and the how and when with respect to their exercise of control. They will take this information and put it in a register that they store in their corporate books, similar to what they do for their other shareholder information.

I would like to emphasize again that these new measures would only apply to privately held corporations. Publicly traded corporations already make numerous filings that promote transparency under provincial securities rules or stock exchange listing requirements, including about beneficial owners. These safeguards, combined with the difficulty in controlling a company with a diffuse ownership structure, mean they are not the main area of concern here.

Once this information is on hand, corporations will be required to update it at least once a year. This means doing their due diligence, taking reasonable steps to make sure the information is still accurate. As I mentioned, most Canadian corporations are small businesses with a simple ownership structure, and this should not be too difficult a task for them to handle.

We must take it one step at a time, however, and weigh our options at each stage to be sure that what we do makes the most sense for Canada and its provinces and territories. To that end, the important changes proposed by these amendments, and eventually those at the provincial and territorial level as well, set us on our path to making our marketplace safer and more transparent in corporate governance and toward maintaining our international commitments. These changes will help to enhance Canada's reputation as a place to do business and thereby further support the overwhelming majority of hard-working Canadians who own and control corporations for legitimate purposes.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond Hill.

I am proud to rise today as the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park to speak on behalf of my constituents in support of Bill C-86, legislation that would entrench, among other things, pay equity throughout federally regulated workplaces in this country.

My constituents in Parkdale—High Park are dedicated advocates of women's rights. They include many who work hard in the federal civil service, in Crown corporations, in the transport sector, in banking, in telecommunications companies and in the Canadian Armed Forces. These are women whose request is very simple: equal pay for work of equal value. This is not a complicated ask. This is not a controversial ask. It is an ask simply for fairness. It is an ask to be treated equally.

This is what Bill C-86 would deliver: equal pay for work of equal value. It would deliver, at long last, a system that compensates women in federally regulated industries at the same level as men. My constituents in Parkdale—High Park deserve no less. The women in this country who have been fighting for equality for so long deserve no less.

Importantly, this is not a zero-sum game. When women receive the salaries they have deserved for so long, that does not come at the expense of men. To the contrary, men and women both gain when salaries are paid equally. Canada benefits when fairness applies throughout our federally regulated industries. Indeed, pay equity will spur economic growth in which all of us will share.

Let us start with where we are now. In Canada, women earn 31% less than men. Extensive research has shown that women with the same experience and the same socio-economic and demographic background earn approximately $7,200 less than their male counterparts on an annual basis. Years of inaction in the field of gender equality have only compounded the problem. Policies implemented a decade ago are now outdated and limit our potential to effectively include women in our nation's growth. Our government is committed to changing this, and that is why we are moving forward with proactive pay equity legislation through Bill C-86.

It is pretty straightforward to get a basic grasp of how flawed the current system of pay equity in Canada actually is. For example, the model we currently use is based on responding to complaints. This has proven to be ineffective for current times, because it puts the onus on workers to challenge pay discrimination. Bill C-86 would remove the complaint-based reactive system and replace it with a new regime that was proactive and that placed responsibility on employers to ensure that their compensation practices were balanced.

Second, as an additional obligation, the proposed legislation would require federally regulated public and private sector employers to establish and maintain a pay equity plan. This is because we understand the necessity of redressing the systemic gender-based discrimination experienced by employees who occupy positions in predominantly female job classes.

Bill C-86 lays out two sets of requirements, one for employers with between 10 and 99 employees and one for workplaces with 100 or more employees. According to this bill, federally regulated public and private entities would be obliged to set out specific timelines for implementation and do a compulsory review of their pay equity strategies. The bill would also permit the government to apply accountability measures to ensure that the compensation practices were consistent with the new requirements.

Further, the proposed legislation would require federally regulated employers across the banking, transport and telecommunication sectors, for example, to review their pay equity plans every five years to ensure that pay gaps had not surfaced since the plan first came into effect. If a pay gap was created, the employer would be expected to retroactively pay those female employees who were making less than they deserved.

I want to turn now to a third important component of Bill C-86. The bill would create the position of pay equity commissioner, who would have a professional team to assist in enforcing the new approaches to pay equity entrenched in the proposed legislation. This pay equity commissioner would facilitate the resolution of disputes, conduct compliance audits and investigate objections and complaints. The pay equity commissioner would have the means to impose fines should an employer be found to not be paying employees equally, and he or she would then report annually to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of this proposed legislation.

Fourth, Bill C-86 would establish pay equity standards, from the Prime Minister's office to all parliamentary workplaces throughout Canada. This is part of our whole-of-government approach to addressing gender inequality. Through this bill, for example, we would formalize our commitment to promoting gender equality and increasing the participation of women in the labour force by establishing concrete reporting requirements for analyzing budgets through a gender lens.

As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, I am also proud of the whole-of-government work we have done under the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice to ensure that a gender lens is applied to efforts to increase access to justice and legal reform.

Bill C-78 is a case in point. That bill, as part of our whole-of-government approach towards gender, takes specific aim at the plight of middle-class women struggling to access spousal and child support they are owed after a marital breakdown. Via Bill C-78, we would be taking steps to facilitate access to information about a former spouse's assets via the Canada Revenue Agency and their records. That would prevent spouses from hiding assets and ensure that more women were paid the spousal and child support they rightly deserve. I say “women” in this context, because we know that in this country, over $1 billion is owed in enforcement arrears to those owed spousal and child support. We also know that among the entire group in an enforcement arrears situation, 96% of the people owed money are women who are owed money by men.

I outline this example of Bill C-78 as a further example of the whole-of-government approach we have taken on this side of the chamber in terms of our approach to addressing gender inequity.

Bill C-86 is clearly an example of such legislation. It would make Status of Women a full department, called the department of women and gender equality, or WAGE.

It is well established that gender equality creates economic growth, thus entrenching the department of women and gender equality would strengthen our capacity to advance gender equality and grow the middle class through policy, programming and the support of equality-seeking organizations and community partners. The mandate of this new formalized department would further promote gender equality by breaking down barriers in respect of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

Status of Women has been working on the issue of pay inequity for decades, but Bill C-86 would secure the department's place as a centre of gender expertise. It would recognize its work as a driver of economic growth and make it less vulnerable to alterations without widespread public debate and discourse. In addition, we are determined to formalize this new department to ensure that no future government ever again questions the importance of equal pay for work of equal value in Canadian society.

As I mentioned at the very outset, pay equity is not a zero-sum game. Giving to one gender is not about taking from another. To the contrary, pay inequity that has persisted for so long is actually limiting our growth. It is damaging to the development of our nation. I know this, my constituents in Parkdale—High Park know this, and our government knows this.

The “Global Gender Gap Report 2017”, from the World Economic Forum, substantiated that it will take approximately 217 years to close the economic gender gap worldwide if present trends are allowed to continue. They will not be allowed to continue, not under our government's watch.

It is essential for us to implement policies that will remove barriers that prevent women in the labour force from being fairly compensated for their work. It is critical that the Government of Canada uphold the basic principles of equality and fairness and continue to build a country and an economy that works for all genders.

From appointing the first gender-balanced federal cabinet and the first federal minister fully dedicated to gender issues, to tabling Canada's first-ever budget analyzed through a gender-based lens, to launching Canada's first-ever strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence, to an unparalleled focus on women and girls in our international development assistance, our government has demonstrated that it is committed to advancing gender equality within Canada and around the world.

Pay equity for women is long overdue. I am proud to support this bill, and I encourage every one of my colleagues in this chamber to do the very same.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-86—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the dean of our caucus, the longest-serving member for Calgary Forest Lawn, who has been outraged on a few occasions by Liberal mismanagement of the economy. That is what I am going to spend a few minutes on in my remarks today on Bill C-86, the budget implementation act. There are a few aspects I am going to go through that should concern all Canadians, the biggest of which is the uncompetitiveness of our economy and how we are not ready for a global downturn. Many of the decisions of the government are putting us on a very precarious footing ahead of what could be uncertain times.

I have concerns related to the record debt levels under the current government and record deficits in a time of positive economic growth. I have called the Liberal track record on debt and deficits the Liberal double-double. Most Canadians are seeing the cost of their double-double going up, when they think of Tim Hortons. The Liberal double-double is deficits and debt. What is crazy about it is that it is being fuelled even with a roaring economy and despite the fact that Liberals are raising taxes countless times, making us uncompetitive. They are taking more money from Canadians and yet still cannot balance the budget.

Because this is a budget implementation bill and because my friend from Winnipeg North, the deputy House leader of the Liberal Party, is here, I want to remind him of the fact that when he says things in the House, they will come back to haunt him. I have mentioned many occasions in the previous government when, as a Liberal opposition member, he would almost howl at the moon. It is the day after Halloween. He would howl about the use of time allocation or omnibus legislation. He called them assaults on democracy several times. He has given me so much material.

I want to keep the member for Winnipeg North on his toes, so I am choosing a quote from this Parliament with respect to his comments. As a government member, he said this, on June 5, 2017, “Member after member has talked about this particular bill being an omnibus bill. Again, when I was standing up and the member made reference to some of my quotes, they were not 300-page documents, they were more like 600-page or 900-page documents, which affected laws that had nothing to do with the budget.” I thank him. This budget implementation bill is 850 pages, so it fits right in the sweet spot that he said was outrageous with the previous government. In fact, it is at the upper range of the outrageous levels he even talked about earlier in this Parliament. It is amazing. This bill is chock full of things that have nothing to do with the budget.

The Liberal member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook quoted the veteran ID card that I announced as minister, the extension of the NDI 75 card and making sure that all veterans got it, not just those serving after 10 years. I was proud to make that announcement in Fredericton alongside my good friend from the Canadian Armed Forces and Royal Military College, Brian MacDonald. He was an MLA in New Brunswick and I thank him for his service in uniform and in the assembly in New Brunswick. We announced that. I was there. I can send the minister the picture of the cards we were holding up. That is in the budget implementation bill.

When the member for Winnipeg North rises to ask me a question or make a comment, which he is likely to do, statistics show he likely will, I would like him to apologize to the chamber for feigned outrage in this place over the very type of omnibus legislation he is now being tasked by Mr. Butts in the Prime Minister's Office to defend. Even at 850-plus pages, it is at the outer range of what he said was clearly unacceptable.

Beyond that, let me go back to the double-double of the Liberal Party: the debt and deficits. There is $60 billion of debt accumulated by the government in good economic times in three years. In a positive economy, where there is economic growth, that is a Canadian record. Liberals should not be proud of that record, because that debt and the deficits they are running on an annual basis are future taxes for my children.

They are spending recklessly at a time when they should be putting some away for the clouds looming on the horizon. They are not, and virtually none of it was the infrastructure money they promised.

Members will recall, in the last election, when the member for Papineau changed his fundamental economic views halfway through an election to outfox the NDP. He started the election saying that they are the party of Paul Martin and balanced budgets. Midway through, he said they were going to run deficits, but Canadians were not to worry because it would be no more than $10 billion and they would be in balance by 2019. All of that was out the window within three months. The Liberals have run deficits in the $20 billion or $20 billion-plus range every single year.

What is more egregious is they received $20 billion last year in extra revenues because the economy is strong because the Conservative Party put the economy on a footing such that when the American economy recovered, which it has, we would be booming again. Therefore, when the Liberals quote how Canada's growth was tepid during the global recession, they should go and see how our G7 allies were doing. We were the only one with a balanced budget, the only one that balanced our budget without raising taxes. We lowered taxes. Even the tax reduction of the small business rate that we had planned to 9%, the Liberals cancelled at first. Now they praise it, as they are returning it to a level we had pledged it to go to back in 2014.

It is almost comical to hear members of the Liberal Party talk about the budget, competitiveness and deficits. Their policy and the underlying philosophy change by the moment, all based on opportunity for a photograph and the hope that they can grow the economy from the heart outward. Do members remember that one? The Liberals said that the budget will balance itself and that they will grow the economy from the heart outward. They can tell that to the Alberta oil patch workers or the engineers or geologists who are out of work, or property companies that now see high vacancy rates in Alberta because the Liberals have botched the resource economy.

In fact, the Canadians they failed the most in the resource economy are our indigenous peoples. The northern gateway pipeline was a one-third owned pipeline. Our country has a commitment to make sure first nations and Inuit play a role in our economy and benefit directly, and they would have benefited with northern gateway. The Liberals cancelled that on a whim and brought in Bill C-69, which led to the cancellation of energy east, and then they were forced to buy Trans Mountain when the company was leaving Canada because we are not competitive.

In fact, Jack Mintz, the leading tax authority in Canada, warned of a “competitive tsunami” because in three years, while racking up $60 billion in debt for our children and grandchildren, the Liberals have raised taxes on everyone. They have raised personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and payroll taxes and they have introduced a carbon tax, all in the middle of good economic times. In the last year, the United States has been going in the opposite direction. This is why there is a competitive risk. It is all due to the Liberals' mismanagement of the economy.

People are not to just believe me or Jack Mintz. Douglas Porter, the chief economist of BMO, the Bank of Montreal, said, “I think Canada has a very weak competitive position. I think we're going to get crushed in the next recession”. Crushed, because they have squandered the opportunity of good times. The Liberals have put us on an uncompetitive footing so that our small businesses are going to be paying a carbon tax that the Liberals are omitting large emitters from. They are making suburban commuters in Whitby, Ajax, Pickering, Uxbridge and Peterborough pay for their schemes that the parliamentary secretary acknowledged will make businesses uncompetitive, and will not lower emissions.

The very fact that our future competitiveness is hanging in the balance should concern Canadians. It should also concern them that this budget bill does not address the underpinnings of that competitive disadvantage and of our problems getting projects like pipelines done. I would like the Liberals to stand in this House and put forward a plan to get our resources to market.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2.

As members know, the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is on the outskirts of Halifax-Dartmouth. It is a community where we have young families, fishermen, the largest black cultural centre and many Acadians. It is a diverse community that I am very proud to represent.

When we talk about budget 2018 and previous budgets by our government, it is clear that the path we are on is to build a strong economy for all Canadians. In my speech today, I want to touch on three major areas in this budget implementation bill: what it means for families, what it means for our veterans, and women's potential economic benefit when they are much more involved in entrepreneurship and building strong companies.

I cannot go into the text before talking about how our economy is doing now.

After three years, we have seen the Canadian economy grow and continue to prosper. Over 600,000 new jobs have been created. It is a strong sign of our government moving in the right direction when people want to invest and when we are creating good jobs for the middle class.

As well, we should note that the unemployment rate in Canada has dropped from 7.2% to 5.7%. Yes, members heard me correctly. At 5.7%, it is the lowest unemployment rate in Canada in the last 40 years. It is very impressive.

I also want to talk about the Canada child benefit. This is an investment in Canadians and in Canadian families. It is an investment in young families, which is extremely important. The riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is one riding out of 338 in Canada, and in my riding alone the families are receiving $5.2 million per month. That is $60 million per year in the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

I am not the only lucky one, because all 338 members of Parliament have this Canada child benefit going to their constituents, which means anywhere between $40 million and $80 million invested in families in their ridings.

Speaking about families in this budget implementation bill, I want to talk about the EI parental benefit. That is a very important benefit that recognizes some of the challenges in life. It is creating more flexibility for Canadian families. If they split or share those benefits, we are adding five extra weeks of benefits.

As well, when talking about families, we have to talk about pharmacare. Our government is moving forward. We have established an advisory committee that will report shortly. We also had the permanent committee present its report on pharmacare. I believe we will see some positive news on pharmacare very soon.

We are also introducing, of course, the new Canada workers benefit. This new benefit will add 300,000 Canadians to the middle class. That means over two million Canadians will now have access to this benefit, which is very important. With BIA 2, we will ensure that these individuals do not have to apply; it will happen automatically, once again making life easier for Canadian families.

I also want to talk about some changes in the labour code that will provide five days of paid leave to victims of family violence employed by the public service, as well as five days of personal leave, three of which would be paid. Those are major changes that will make life better for Canadians.

Touching on veterans, this is a very important topic for me. My riding has the largest number of veterans and military per capita, with 23% being veterans. We have introduced the option of a pension for life. Veterans already have a lump-sum pension, which we had introduced, but now they will have the option of a pension for life.

Depending on their pain and suffering, veterans could have up to $1,150 a month. If they have additional pain and suffering, they could receive another $1,500 a month, or a salary replacement of up to 90%. That is what our government is doing to support our veterans and their families. I hear when I am travelling around my riding how important it is for veterans to have access to that.

I have to talk about the ID card for veterans and a story, believe it or not, that I still have trouble with. When veterans tell me this story, it is painful to hear: The former Harper government cut the ID card for veterans. If anyone can help me understand that, please do so, because that is amazing.

Our government has just introduced a new ID card. The new ID card will have a veteran's photo and rank on it, as well as his or her service record and service number. It will not only recognize veterans' service, their hard work and what they have done for Canadians, but it will also help them access programs and services, which is extremely important.

Talking now about women, we have invested in a new entrepreneurial strategy for supporting women in industry. We have invested $1.65 billion over three years for new financing opportunities for women in industry, and we have also invested $150 million through regional tailoring of the needs in rural communities across Canada.

Also, pay equity is included in this budget implementation bill. That is extremely important. When the opposition talks about the 400 pages, it is because 200 pages alone talk about pay equity and all the consultation we have done. Our government will bring legislation forward in the very near future in this area.

In closing, I want to say that the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook and the province of Nova Scotia will greatly benefit by many of these investments.

However, talking about rural broadband, an Internet connection for rural communities is essential if we are going to allow those communities to prosper and grow.

We have seen also the investment in home care and mental health. Those are big investments that will help all Canadians, including Nova Scotians and of course the people in the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

We also support families with challenges such as dementia and autism. We have seen some investment in those areas as well.

This is moving forward. This is a strong budget that we are implementing here. It is consistent with the other budgets that we brought forward and I am very pleased to be a member on this side of the House supporting Canadians, supporting the middle class, supporting veterans, supporting families, supporting youth and so on.