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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again, the scope of my speech was on ensuring corporate accountability through transparency of control. By the way, I am quite proud of the Prime Minister and the focus his continued focus on various issues. As part of this commitment, we are taking action to ensure that corporate structures cannot be misused to launder money, evade taxes or participate in other serious criminal activities.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it seems that New Democrats think we have too many pages in our budget and that we are doing too much for Canadians. I hear the Conservatives saying that we should not be investing in our economy and should focus on limiting our vision for Canada. This bill reflects the complexity of the challenge of making Canada fairer and the economy work for all Canadians. During the INDU committee's studies, the committee looked at Bill C-25 and the composition of boards. It also looked at beneficial ownership to try to make sure that women can participate on boards and in management. Other parts of the budget bill are supporting women in business.

Could the hon. member comment on the importance of proper governance so that women have a fair chance in our economy?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of serving with my colleague from Guelph on the INDU committee, as well as in regard to our joint initiative on mental health.

The hon. member is quite correct. When we were studying Bill C-25, the topic of ownership, specifically by women, came up in the study. We realized that whenever there is fair representation of females, corporations on average perform in the neighbourhood of 30% better. We welcome Bill C-25 and also the measures in this act that support female participation in corporate structures, as well as making sure we have proper representation.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, if we look at the act, because of this government, there is an opportunity, through the Speaker's chair, to see the splitting potentially of the legislation when it comes time for voting. That was not there previously.

Over 100 pages of the legislation deal with the issue of pay equity, which is long overdue. It is a part of the budget process and it is one of the reasons why we have 800 pages, over 100 dealing specifically with pay equity.

Would the member agree that the time for studying, in good part, is over and we need to see some action? That is what we see in the budget. Would she not support that?

[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.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the environment is very important to my colleague and to her party.

I am wondering whether she has any advice to give regarding the carbon tax and whether she thinks the carbon tax is really the best way for the government to save the environment, especially in the budget, or does she think there is another way the government could save the environment?

[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.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot about pensions, and justifiably so, from my friends on the New Democratic side. However, I want to emphasize that this government has taken a number of steps dealing with seniors.

The first thing that comes across my mind is that the government has increased the guaranteed income supplement significantly for the poorest of our seniors. Some seniors receive over $900 additionally every year. Here I also think of the agreement on the CPP, a retirement pension, that the Minister of Finance was able to reach in co-operation with our provinces and territories. It will help many of the individuals my friend is talking about today when it comes time to retire. One of the first actions the government took was to bring down the age of retirement for OAS from 67 to 65. My colleague across the way will recall what Mr. Harper did back then, and we were able to reverse that.

Would the member provide his thoughts on those particular policy initiatives?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for asking those important questions. We on this side give you kudos for making those changes, reversing what the previous Conservative government did.

There are good things, such as reducing the age of eligibility back to 65. The GIS is a good thing. The CPP, well, maybe in 50 years the changes will be good, though you and I will not be around then. We are thankful for that, but what we are talking about here is pension theft.

We know that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have had their pensions reduced because of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. If the Liberals want to be praised for helping seniors, why are they not protecting them from this pension theft that they know is wrong? We all know it is wrong. Why are they not taking action?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the time is up now, but the member will have three minutes for questions and comments the next time this issue is before the House. I would also remind the member that he should have been addressing all of his questions and comments to the chair, and not to the individual member.

It being 5:58 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

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.

[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.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member speak about all the expenses and so-called investments the government is making. Certainly the Liberals are good at spending. We have seen that through the last number of budgets. What they are not so good at is balancing the budget.

The member said that Canadians chose the Liberals' plan over our plan. What they did not choose is to continue deficit spending into 2045, with no plan to balance the budget. In fact, the interest costs alone to Canadians are currently $30 billion. Just think of what we could do with those dollars that are going out the window for interest in terms of investments in infrastructure and health care. We could be investing that money in many other things.

I am concerned about the future. I am concerned about the future for my children and my nine grandchildren and what kind of debt we are leaving them. I am wondering if my colleague has no concern at all about the unbelievable costs we are simply kicking down the road to the next generation, forcing them to pay for the things we should not be spending money on right now.

We should be balancing the budget. We are in a time of economic growth. There is no reason to have deficit spending. Is my colleague not concerned about these things?