Bill C-97 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax and related measures by
(a) providing a temporary enhanced first-year capital cost allowance rate of 100% in respect of eligible zero-emission vehicles;
(b) removing the requirement that property be of “national importance” in order to qualify for the enhanced tax incentives for donations of cultural property;
(c) providing a temporary enhanced first-year capital cost allowance rate in respect of a wide range of depreciable capital properties, including a temporary first-year capital cost allowance rate of 100% in respect of
(i) machinery and equipment used for the manufacturing or processing of goods, and
(ii) specified clean energy equipment;
(d) ensuring that social assistance payments under certain programs are non-taxable, are not included in income for the purposes of determining entitlement to income-tested benefits and credits and do not preclude an individual from being considered a “parent” for the purposes of the Canada Workers Benefit;
(e) repealing the use of taxable income as a factor in determining a Canadian-controlled private corporation’s annual expenditure limit for the purpose of the enhanced scientific research and experimental development tax credit;
(f) providing support for Canadian journalism;
(g) introducing the Canada Training Credit;
(h) amending the Income Tax Act to reflect the current regulations for accessing cannabis for medical purposes;
(i) eliminating the requirement that sales be to a farming or fishing cooperative corporation in order to be excluded from specified corporate income for the purposes of the small business deduction;
(j) extending the mineral exploration tax credit for an additional five years;
(k) ensuring that business income of a communal organization retains its character when it is allocated to members of the communal organization for tax purposes;
(l) increasing the withdrawal limit under the Home Buyers’ Plan and amending how it applies on the breakdown of a marriage or common-law partnership;
(m) extending joint and several liability for tax owing on income from carrying on business in a TFSA to the TFSA’s holder and limiting the TFSA issuer’s liability for such tax;
(n) supporting employees who must reimburse a salary overpayment to their employer due to a system, administrative or clerical error;
(o) expanding tax support for electric vehicle charging stations and electrical energy storage equipment;
(p) allowing joint projects of producers from Canada and Belgium to qualify for the Canadian film or video production tax credit; and
(q) ensuring appropriate pension adjustment calculations in 2019 and subsequent tax years for registered pension plans that reference the enhanced Canada Pension Plan.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 19, 2019 budget
(a) to provide GST/HST relief in the health care sector by relieving the GST/HST on supplies and importations of human ova and importations of in vitro embryos, by adding licenced podiatrists and chiropodists to the list of practitioners on whose order supplies of foot care devices are zero-rated and by exempting from the GST/HST certain health care services rendered by a multidisciplinary team of licenced health care professionals; and
(b) by introducing amendments to ensure that the GST/HST treatment of expenses incurred in respect of zero-emission passenger vehicles parallels the income tax treatment of those vehicles.
Part 3 implements certain excise measures proposed in the March 19, 2019 budget by changing the federal excise duty rates on cannabis products that are edible cannabis, cannabis extracts (including cannabis oils) and cannabis topicals to $0.‍0025 per milligram of total tetrahydrocannabinol contained in the cannabis product.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to, among other things, provide members of federal credit unions with different methods of voting prior to meetings and provide additional exceptions to the requirement that a proxy circular be sent in order to solicit proxies. The Subdivision also makes a technical amendment to An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to financial institutions.
Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Payments Act to allow the term of the elected directors of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Payments Association to be renewed twice, to extend the term of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of that Board and to allow the remuneration of certain members of the Stakeholder Advisory Council.
Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to require a corporation, on request by an investigative body that has reasonable grounds to suspect that certain offences have been committed, to provide to the investigative body a copy of its register of individuals with significant control or information in that registry that is specified by the investigative body. It also requires those investigative bodies to keep certain records in relation to their requests and to report annually in respect of those requests.
Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to add the element of recklessness to the offence of laundering proceeds of crime.
Subdivision C of Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) allow the Governor in Council to make regulations defining “virtual currency” and “dealing in virtual currencies”;
(b) require the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (“the Centre”) to disclose information to the Agence du Revenu du Québec and the Competition Bureau in certain circumstances;
(c) allow the Centre to disclose additional designated information that is associated with the import and export of currency and monetary instruments;
(d) provide that certain information must not be the subject of a confidentiality order made in the course of an appeal to the Federal Court; and
(e) require the Centre to make public certain information if a person or entity is deemed to have committed a violation or is served a notice of a decision of the Director indicating that a person or entity has committed a violation.
Subdivision D of Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Seized Property Management Act to authorize the Minister to, among other things,
(a) provide consultative and other services to any person employed in the federal public administration or by a provincial or municipal authority in relation to the seizure, restraint, custody, management, forfeiture or disposal of certain property;
(b) manage property seized, restrained or forfeited under any Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province; and
(c) dispose of property when it is forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada and, with the consent of the government of the province, when it is forfeited to Her Majesty in right of a province, and share the proceeds.
The Subdivision also makes consequential amendments to the Criminal Code, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Employment Equity Act to require federally regulated private-sector employers to report salary information that supports employment equity reporting beyond salary ranges, including making wage gap information by occupational groups more evident.
Division 4 of Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for climate action support and in relation to infrastructure as well as to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and to the Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to, among other things,
(a) require all parties in a proceeding under the Act to act in good faith; and
(b) allow the court to inquire into certain payments made to, among other persons, directors or officers of a corporation in the year preceding insolvency and imposes liability on the directors for those payments.
The Division amends the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to, among other things,
(a) limit the relief provided in an order made under section 11 to what is reasonably necessary and limit the period staying all proceedings that might be taken in respect of the company to 10 days;
(b) allow the court to make an order to disclose an economic interest in respect of a debtor company; and
(c) require all parties in a proceeding under the Act to act in good faith.
The Division also amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) set out factors that directors and officers of a corporation may consider when acting with a view to the best interests of that corporation; and
(b) require directors of certain corporations to disclose certain information to shareholders respecting diversity, well-being and remuneration.
Finally, the Division amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to clarify that a pension plan is not to provide that, among other things, a member’s pension benefit or entitlement to a pension benefit is affected when a plan terminates. It also authorizes a pension plan administrator to purchase an immediate or deferred life annuity for former members or survivors in order to satisfy an obligation under the plan to provide a pension benefit arising from a defined benefit provision.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to authorize the Minister of Employment and Social Development to waive the requirement for an application for a retirement pension in certain cases.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to provide, starting in July 2020, a new income exemption for the purposes of calculating the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The new exemption excludes the first $5,000 of a person’s employment and self-employment income as well as 50% of their employment and self-employment income greater than $5,000 but not exceeding $15,000.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to increase the surplus limit that applies to the Canadian Forces Pension Fund, the Public Service Pension Fund and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Fund, respectively, to 25% of the amount of liabilities.
Subdivision A of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to permit trustee licensing fees to be paid on a date to be prescribed by regulation and to permit trustees to maintain electronic records instead of retaining original documents.
Subdivision B of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act to allow for the addition, by regulation, of units of measurement for electricity and gas sales and distribution.
Subdivision C of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to improve safety and enable innovation by introducing measures to, among other things,
(a) allow the Minister of Health to classify certain products exclusively as foods, drugs, cosmetics or devices;
(b) provide oversight over the conduct of clinical trials for drugs, devices and certain foods for special dietary purposes;
(c) provide a regulatory framework for advanced therapeutic products; and
(d) modernize inspection powers.
Subdivision D of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act to limit the application of the Act to intoxicating liquors imported into Canada.
Subdivision E of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Precious Metals Marking Act to provide that exemptions made by regulation can be either conditional or unconditional.
Subdivision F of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Textile Labelling Act to provide that exemptions made by regulation can be either conditional or unconditional.
Subdivision G of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Weights and Measures Act to authorize, by regulation, the use of new units of measurement and to update the definitions of the basic units of measurement in accordance with international standards.
Subdivision H of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to streamline the process for reviewing claims for exemption, to allow for the suspension and cancellation of exemptions and to harmonize the provisions of the Act that allow for the disclosure of confidential business information with similar provisions in other Department of Health Acts.
Subdivision I of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to authorize the electronic administration and enforcement of Acts under the Minister of Transport’s authority and to promote innovation in transportation by authorizing the granting of exemptions for the purpose of research, development and testing.
Subdivision J of Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Pest Control Products Act to, among other things, allow the Minister of Health to
(a) expand the scope of a re-evaluation of, or a special review in relation to, a pest control product rather than initiating a new special review; and
(b) decide not to initiate a special review if the aspect of a pest control product that would otherwise prompt such a review is being, or has been, addressed in a re-evaluation or another special review.
Subdivision K of Division 9 of Part 4 repeals the provisions of the Quarantine Act that relate to the laying of proposed regulations before Parliament.
Subdivision L of Division 9 of Part 4 repeals the provisions of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act that relate to the laying of proposed regulations before Parliament.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to establish the Management Advisory Board, which is to provide advice to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the administration and management of that police force.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Pilotage Act to, among other things,
(a) set out a clear purpose and principles for that Act;
(b) transfer the responsibility for making regulations from the Pilotage Authorities, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport;
(c) transfer responsibility for enforcing that Act and issuing and charging for licences and certificates from the Pilotage Authorities to the Minister of Transport;
(d) set out an enforcement regime that is consistent with other Department of Transport Acts;
(e) provide that regulatory matters for the safe provision of compulsory pilotage services not be addressed in service contracts between the Pilotage Authorities and pilot corporations;
(f) allow the Pilotage Authorities to impose charges other than by making regulations;
(g) require that service contracts between pilot corporations and the Pilotage Authorities be publicly available; and
(h) prohibit pilots, or users or suppliers of pilotage services, from sitting on the board of directors of a Pilotage Authority.
The Division also makes consequential amendments to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act.
Division 12 of Part 4 enacts the Security Screening Services Commercialization Act. That Act, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to designate a body corporate incorporated under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act as the designated screening authority, which is to be solely responsible for providing aviation security screening services;
(b) authorizes the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to sell or otherwise dispose of its assets and liabilities to the designated screening authority;
(c) regulates the establishment, imposition and collection of charges related to the provision of aviation security screening services; and
(d) provides for the dissolution of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
The Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act to authorize the Minister of Transport to undertake to indemnify
(a) NAV CANADA for acts or omissions it commits in accordance with an instruction given under an agreement entered into between NAV CANADA and Her Majesty respecting the provision of air navigation services to the Department of National Defence; and
(b) any beneficiary under an insurance policy held by an aviation industry participant.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act to clarify that the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada has jurisdiction in respect of reviews and appeals in connection with administrative monetary penalties provided for under the Marine Liability Act.
Division 15 of Part 4 enacts the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act. That Act creates a new self-regulatory regime governing immigration and citizenship consultants. It provides that the purpose of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants is to regulate immigration and citizenship consultants in the public interest and protect the public. That Act, among other things,
(a) creates a licensing regime for immigration and citizenship consultants and requires that licensees comply with a code of professional conduct, initially established by the responsible Minister;
(b) authorizes the College’s Complaints Committee to conduct investigations into a licensee’s conduct and activities;
(c) authorizes the College’s Discipline Committee to take or require action if it determines that a licensee has committed professional misconduct or was incompetent;
(d) prohibits persons who are not licensees from using certain titles and representing themselves to be licensees and provides that the College may seek an injunction for the contravention of those prohibitions;
(e) provides the responsible Minister with the authority to determine the number of directors on the board of directors and to require the Board to do anything that is advisable to carry out the purposes of that Act; and
(f) contains transitional provisions allowing the existing regulator — the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council — to be continued as the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants or, if the existing regulator is not continued, allowing the establishment of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants, a new corporation without share capital.
The Division also makes related amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to double the existing maximum fines applicable to the offence of contravening section 21.‍1 of the Citizenship Act or section 91 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
In addition, it amends those Acts to provide the authority to make regulations establishing a system of administrative penalties and consequences, including of administrative monetary penalties, applicable to certain violations by persons who provide representation or advice for consideration — or offer to do so — in immigration or citizenship matters.
Finally, the Division makes consequential amendments to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) introduce a new ground of ineligibility for refugee protection if a claimant has previously made a claim for refugee protection in another country;
(b) provide that if the Federal Court refuses a person’s application for leave to commence an application for judicial review, or denies their application for judicial review, with respect to their claim for refugee protection or their application for protection, the date of that refusal or denial is the first day of the period that must pass before a request or application referred to in section 24, 25 or 112 of that Act may be made; and
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order regarding the processing of applications for temporary resident visas, work permits and study permits made by citizens or nationals of a foreign state or territory if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the government or competent authority of that state or territory is unreasonably refusing to issue or unreasonably delaying the issuance of travel documents to citizens or nationals of that state or territory who are in Canada.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Federal Courts Act to increase the number of Federal Court judges.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the National Housing Act to allow the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to acquire an interest or right in a housing project that is occupied or intended to be occupied by the owner of the project and to make an investment in order to acquire such an interest or right.
Division 19 of Part 4 enacts the National Housing Strategy Act. That Act provides for, among other things, the development and maintenance of a national housing strategy and imposes requirements related to the mandatory content of the strategy. It also establishes a National Housing Council and requires the appointment of a Federal Housing Advocate. Finally, it requires the submission of an annual report by the Advocate on systemic housing issues and the submission of periodic reports by the designated Minister on the implementation of the strategy and the achievement of desired housing outcomes.
Division 20 of Part 4 enacts the Poverty Reduction Act, which provides for an official metric and other metrics to measure the level of poverty in Canada, sets out two poverty reduction targets in Canada and establishes the National Advisory Council on Poverty.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends the Veterans Well-being Act to expand the eligibility criteria for the education and training benefit in order to make members of the Supplementary Reserve eligible for that benefit.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to extend the interest-free period on student loans by six months and to provide for transitional measures in respect of individuals to whom student loans were made and who ceased to be students at any time during the six months before the amendments come into force.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Canada National Parks Act to establish Thaidene Nene National Park Reserve of Canada and to decrease the hectarage of certain ski areas.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Parks Canada Agency Act to provide that, starting on April 1, 2021, any balance of money appropriated to the Parks Canada Agency that is not spent by the Agency in the fiscal year in which it was appropriated lapses at the end of that fiscal year.
Subdivision A of Division 25 of Part 4 enacts the Department of Indigenous Services Act, which establishes the Department of Indigenous Services and confers on the Minister of Indigenous Services various responsibilities relating to the provision of services to Indigenous individuals eligible to receive those services.
Subdivision B of Division 25 of Part 4 enacts the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Act, which establishes the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, confers on the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations various responsibilities relating to relations with Indigenous peoples and confers on the Minister of Northern Affairs various responsibilities relating to the administration of Northern affairs.
Subdivision C of Division 25 of Part 4 makes amendments to other Acts and repeals the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act.
Subdivision D of Division 25 of Part 4 makes amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act, the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act and the Addition of Lands to Reserves and Reserve Creation Act.
Division 26 of Part 4 enacts the Federal Prompt Payment for Construction Work Act in order to establish a regime to provide prompt payments to contractors and subcontractors for construction work performed for the purposes of a construction project in respect of federal real property or federal immovables and a regime to resolve disputes over the non-payment of that construction work.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 21, 2019:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday, provided that, if a recorded division on the previous question is deferred and the motion is subsequently adopted, the recorded division on the original question shall not be deferred;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division in relation to any government order requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2019, or at any time on Friday, June 21, 2019, shall be deferred;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division requested in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) when one or several deferred recorded divisions occur on a bill at report stage, a motion, “That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass”, may be made in the same sitting;

(j) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m., except by a Minister of the Crown;

(k) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81(18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.;

(l) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, (i) all remaining motions to concur in the Votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the question deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested, (ii) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker will be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage;

(m) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the 31st sitting day after the interruption; and

(n) Members not seeking re-election to the 43rd Parliament may be permitted to make statements, on Tuesday, June 4, and Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members’ Business for not more than three hours, and that, for the duration of the statements, (i) no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, (ii) after three hours or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall return to Government Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30, which allows for the extension of the sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30. This motion would allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment. There is a clear and recent precedent for this extension of hours to give the House more time to do its important work. It occurred last year at this time and also the year before that. As well, in the previous Parliament, the hours of the House were extended in June 2014.

Four years ago, our government came forward with an ambitious mandate that promised real change. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government has introduced legislation that has improved the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. However, we have more work to do.

So far in this Parliament, the House has passed 82 government bills, and 65 of those have received royal assent. The facts are clear. This Parliament has been productive. We have a strong record of accomplishment. It is a long list, so I will cite just a few of our accomplishments.

Bill C-2 made good on our promise to lower taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. There are nine million Canadians who have benefited from this middle-class tax cut. This tax cut has been good for Canadians and their families. It has been good for the economy and good for Canada, and its results have been better than advertised. On our side, we are proud of this legislation. We have always said that we were on the side of hard-working, middle-class Canadians, and this legislation is proof of exactly that.

As well, thanks to our budgetary legislation, low-income families with children are better off today. We introduced the biggest social policy innovation in more than a generation through the creation of the tax-free Canada child benefit. The CCB puts cash into the pockets of nine out of 10 families and has lifted nearly 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.

Early in this Parliament, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada, we passed medical assistance in dying legislation, which carefully balanced the rights of those seeking medical assistance in dying while ensuring protection of the most vulnerable in our society.

Also of note, we repealed the previous government's law that allowed citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens. We also restored the rights of Canadians abroad to vote in Canadian elections.

We added gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, passing Bill C-65 has helped make workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill free from harassment and sexual violence.

We promised to give the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer the powers, resources and independence to properly do its job. We delivered on that commitment through legislation, and the PBO now rigorously examines the country's finances in an independent and non-partisan manner.

Through Bill C-45, we ended the failed approach to cannabis by legalizing it and strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis, as part of our plan to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the pockets of organized crime. Along with that, Bill C-46 has strengthened laws to deter and punish people who drive while impaired, both from alcohol and/or drugs.

These are just some examples of the work we have accomplished on behalf of Canadians.

We are now heading into the final weeks of this session of Parliament, and there is more work to do. Four years ago, Canadians sent us here with a responsibility to work hard on their behalf, to discuss important matters of public policy, to debate legislation and to vote on that legislation.

The motion to allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House is timely, and clearly it is necessary. We have an important legislative agenda before us, and we are determined to work hard to make even more progress.

Passage of this motion would give all members exactly what they often ask for: more time for debate. I know every member wants to deliver for their communities and this motion will help with exactly that. We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks and we have the opportunity to add time to get more done.

I would like to highlight a few of the bills that our government will seek to advance.

I will start with Bill C-97, which would implement budget 2017. This budget implementation act is about making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy. That means helping more Canadians find an affordable home, and get training so that they have the skills necessary to obtain good, well-paying jobs. It is also about making it easier for seniors to retire with confidence.

Another important bill is Bill C-92, which would affirm and recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families. The bill would require all providers of indigenous child and family services to adhere to certain principles, namely the best interests of the child, family unity and cultural continuity. This co-drafted legislation would transfer the jurisdiction of child and family services delivery to indigenous communities. This is historic legislation that is long overdue.

We have another important opportunity for us as parliamentarians, which is to pass Bill C-93, the act that deals with pardons as they relate to simple possession of cannabis. As I mentioned, last year we upheld our commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. It is time to give people who were convicted of simple possession a straightforward way to clear their names. We know it is mostly young people from the poorest of communities who have been targeted and hence are being left behind. This bill would create an expedited pardon process, with no application fee or waiting period, for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. Canadians who have held criminal records in the past for simple possession of cannabis should be able to meaningfully participate in their communities, get good and stable jobs and become the contributing members of our society that they endeavour to be.

Meanwhile, there is another important bill before the House that we believe needs progress. Bill C-88 is an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. This legislation only impacts the Northwest Territories, and its territorial government is asking us to act. This legislation protects Canada's natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous people and supports a strong natural resources sector. This bill will move the country ahead with a process that promotes reconciliation with indigenous peoples and creates certainty for investments in the Mackenzie Valley and the Arctic.

Earlier this month, our government introduced Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. This bill would create civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency. It would provide citizens with an independent review body to address complaints about the CBSA, just as they now have complaint mechanisms in place for the RCMP. Let me remind members that it was our government that brought forward Bill C-22 that established the national security intelligence committee of parliamentarians, which has tabled its first annual report to Parliament. We are committed to ensuring that our country's border services are worthy of the trust of Canadians, and Bill C-98 is a significant step towards strengthening that accountability.

We have taken a new approach. We, as a government, have consulted with Canadians when it comes to our legislation. We have seen committees call witnesses and suggest amendments that often times improve legislation, and we, as a government, have accepted those changes. We were able to accomplish this work because we gave the committees more resources and we encouraged Liberal members to do their work.

Likewise, currently there are two bills that have returned to the House with amendments from the Senate. I look forward to members turning their attention to these bills as well. One of those bills is Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Our goal is to make accessibility both a reality and a priority across federal jurisdictions so that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, can participate and be included in society as contributing members. Bill C-81 would help us to reach that goal by taking a proactive approach to getting ahead of systemic discrimination. The purpose of this bill is to make Canada barrier free, starting in areas under federal jurisdiction. This bill, if passed by Parliament, will represent the most significant legislation for the rights of persons with disabilities in over 30 years, and for once it will focus on their abilities.

The other bill we have received from the Senate is Bill C-58, which would make the first significant reforms to the Access to Information Act since it was enacted in 1982. With this bill, our government is raising the bar on openness and transparency by revitalizing access to information. The bill would give more power to the Information Commissioner and would provide for proactive disclosure of information.

There are also a number of other bills before the Senate. We have respect for the upper chamber. It is becoming less partisan thanks to the changes our Prime Minister has made to the appointment process, and we respect the work that senators do in reviewing legislation as a complementary chamber.

Already the Senate has proposed amendments to many bills, and the House has in many instances agreed with many of those changes. As we look toward the final few weeks, it is wise to give the House greater flexibility, and that is exactly why supporting this motion makes sense. This extension motion will help to provide the House with the time it needs to consider these matters.

There are now just 20 days left in the parliamentary calendar before the summer adjournment, and I would like to thank all MPs and their teams for their contributions to the House over the past four years. Members in the House have advanced legislation that has had a greater impact for the betterment of Canadians. That is why over 800,000 Canadians are better off today than they were three years ago when we took office.

We saw that with the lowering of the small business tax rate to 9%, small businesses have been able to grow through innovation and trade. We see that Canadians have created over one million jobs, the majority of which are full-time, good-paying jobs that Canadians deserve. These are jobs that were created by Canadians for Canadians.

That is why I would also like to stress that while it is necessary for us to have honest and vibrant deliberations on the motion, Canadians are looking for us all to work collaboratively and constructively in their best interests. That is exactly why extending the hours will provide the opportunity for more members to be part of the debates that represent the voices of their constituents in this place, so that we continue to advance good legislation that benefits even more Canadians.

It has been great to do the work that we have been doing, but we look forward to doing even more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right, CPC-3 requires a royal recommendation, so the amendment is inadmissible. I'll explain for the record why.

Clause 129 of Bill C-97 establishes a formula to specify amounts that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the climate action support. Amendment CPC-3 attempts to modify the formula.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

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

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposed is a new formula which seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation and therefore, amendment CPC-3 is inadmissible.

We're now on CPC-4

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault. This amendment, however, requires a royal recommendation and therefore would be inadmissible. This part of Bill C-97 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by establishing a formula to calculate the qualifying labour expenditure, and this amendment attempts to modify that formula.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

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

Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

(Clause 23 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 24 to 42 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 43)

We have amendment CPC-1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 30, 2019, we are examining Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019, and other measures.

We'll start with clause-by-clause consideration of part I.

I'm pretty confident everybody knows the procedure. We have officials here if you have any questions as we go through it. I'll go through the various clauses, and the officials are open for discussion.

On part 1, which deals with clauses 2 to 69, we have officials here.

We have Mr. McGowan, Director General, Tax Legislation Division. It's not his first time here for sure.

We have Mr. LeBlanc, Director General, Personal Income Tax Division.

We have Ms. Lavoie, Director General, Business Income Tax Division.

Finally, we have Mr. Langdon, Director, Charities, Personal Income Tax Division.

That is our list of witnesses for part 1.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

There are no amendments for clauses 2 to 22.

Is it agreed that we carry those on division?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to finally have the opportunity to contribute to a long-awaited debate on an oversight body for the Canada Border Services Agency. It has been over a decade since Justice O'Connor recommended that there be an independent oversight for the CBSA. Since then, a chorus of voices have consistently and persistently called for accountability for the CBSA.

I will state very clearly that the NDP supports Bill C-98, as this is something the NDP and stakeholders have been calling on the current Liberal government to act on for a very long time.

In fact, back in 2014, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, issued a joint press release and called for an independent review of all of CBSA's national security enforcement and border policing activities.

The CBSA is the only major federal law enforcement agency without external oversight. CBSA officers have a broad range of authority. They can stop travellers for questioning. They can take breath and blood samples. They have the ability to search, detain and arrest non-citizens without a warrant. They can interrogate Canadians. They also have the authority to issue and carry out deportations on foreign nationals. Many of these authorities are carried out in an environment where charter protections are reduced in the name of national security. However, despite these sweeping powers, it is astounding that there is no independent external civilian oversight for complaints or allegations of misconduct for the CBSA.

Without a doubt, the overwhelming majority of CBSA officers carry out their duties with the utmost respect for the individuals they engage with and recognize that the authority provided to them is to be used responsibly. However, stories of horrific misconduct have also come to light, and the complaint mechanism is anything but open and accountable.

Joel Sandaluk, a Toronto immigration lawyer, said, “CBSA, for many years, has been a law unto itself.”

Mary Foster of Solidarity Across Borders said, “We have enough experience to know that making a complaint to the CBSA about the CBSA doesn't really lead anywhere.”

It is my understanding that between January 2016 and the middle of 2018, the CBSA investigated around 1,200 allegations of staff misconduct. The alleged misconducts are wide-ranging. They include things like neglect of duty, sexual assault, excessive force, use of inappropriate sexual language, criminal association and harassment.

In 2013, there was a case where a woman, reportedly fleeing domestic violence, died in the CBSA's custody. An inquest into the death concluded that there is “no independent, realistic method for immigrants to bring forward concerns or complaints.”

In 2016, two more people died in the CBSA's custody within a span of just one week.

With incidents such as these, it is vital that there is accountability and transparency to ensure that procedures are respected and that there is no abuse of power. That means it is critical that there is an independent oversight body in the event that complaints are lodged.

Right now, if there is an incident where travellers, whether Canadians or foreign nationals, feel something is not right, be it harassment or use of force, the only recourse is to submit a complaint to the CBSA, which undergoes an internal review. We must keep in mind that the nature of the power imbalance that exists between border authorities such as the CBSA, and travellers, especially those in a foreign country, makes lodging any sort of complaint very difficult. Some people elect not to file a complaint. There are real fears, especially if the process is not well known and the body looking into the complaint is not an independent body. People fear, for example, that future travel could be impacted. People are afraid that by speaking out against mistreatment, they may be punished the next time that they try to travel.

We should keep in mind that for some, such as temporary residents and visitors to Canada, they simply are not around long enough to file a complaint or to see it through. We have a responsibility, especially as a nation that welcomes millions of tourists a year, has our own citizens exploring the world and welcomes hundreds of thousands of newcomers who immigrate here each year, to ensure that people feel safe, respected and protected by our border officials. This is why it is critical that there is a public, independent, civilian oversight body for the CBSA.

The BC Civil Liberties Association has studied this issue closely and has done a report on it. From its report, “Oversight at the Border: A Model for Independent Accountability at the Canada Border Services Agency”, it has recommended “two separate accountability mechanisms for the CBSA, one charged with providing real-time oversight of CBSA’s policies and practices, and one charged with conducting investigations and resolving complaints.”

I would be very interested to hear what it and witnesses say about this proposed bill, and whether or not they feel it meets the call for independent oversight and accountability measures for the CBSA.

I must note that while we debate Bill C-98, another bill, Bill C-59, is currently moving to third reading stage at the Senate. We expect we will see that bill return here in the near future.

Bill C-59 introduces a review agency, the national security and intelligence review agency, or NSIRA. This new body would replace the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner and the Security Intelligence Review Committee, as well as the national security review and complaints investigation functions of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. This means that the new body would have jurisdiction over activities that fall under the umbrella of national security. As for what remains as the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, it will continue to have the external investigative body that reviews complaints from the public about RCMP conduct. However, the bill before us today would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission to the public complaints and review commission and expand its mandate to have a similar review function to the CBSA.

As a result of these changes, depending on the nature of the complaint against the CBSA, a different body with different authorities will be the reviewer of conduct. This will undoubtedly cause confusion at times. Therefore, one wonders why this approach was taken and why it is being done in two separate bills.

However, more concerning is the lack of lack of consultation and the last-minute nature of this proposed legislation. Too often we have seen the government consult and consult, and then do nothing, but then in areas where consultation and study are vital to ensuring that the legislation is what it needs to be, the process is short-changed.

The Customs and Immigration Union, which represents over 10,000 Canadians working on our borders, was not consulted on Bill C-98. This makes no sense to me. Why would the government not be seeking out the views of those individuals on the front lines who are doing the work and who would now have a new body reviewing them and their representative organization? This is not a good way to proceed.

Sadly, as the NDP critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, I have become incredibly familiar with the Liberal government's failure to follow through on its promise on good governance.

As we have seen in Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, the Liberals have decided to ram through dangerous changes to Canada's refugee determination system and put vulnerable lives, especially women and girls fleeing violence, at risk. I suspect that the Liberals are feeling the pressure from the right and want to be seen as being tough on asylum seekers. With an election six months from now, they are jamming draconian changes through in an omnibus budget bill.

I suppose, at least in this case with Bill C-98, while the measures for the changes for the CBSA complaint process were announced in the budget, they at least are tabled in a separate stand-alone bill, Bill C-98.

That is more than I can say about the changes to the refugee determination system, which are being rammed through with minimal study in the omnibus budget bill. In a rush to look tough on borders and caving to pressure and misinformation campaigns by the Conservatives, the Liberals again, without consultation, made very sweeping changes to the asylum system in the budget. Experts immediately called for the provisions to be withdrawn or, at the very minimum, to table them as a separate stand-alone bill. The Liberal government refused.

Some 2,400 Canadians wrote to the Prime Minister calling for the same action. That too fell on deaf ears. Its advice, as recently reported by the Auditor General, was that the 1.2 million calls to the IRCC last year did not get through to the government. I will say that Bill C-98 is at least a stand-alone bill.

With that being said, it must also be recognized, given that the Liberals have failed to take action until the eleventh hour, that there is a chance this bill might not receive royal assent prior to the election. If that occurs, this would then represent yet another broken promise by the Liberal government, another broken promise through its failure to act.

I do wonder what took the government so long to table this bill. Why did it wait until there are only five weeks left in the sitting of the House to bring Bill C-98 forward? I suspect that the Liberal government would employ time allocation measures to limit debate, a tool that Liberals consistently spoke against when the Conservatives were in government. I fear that they will once again have our debate in this place limited because the government could not get its legislation in order in a timely fashion.

The risk that this represents with a bill of this magnitude cannot be ignored. The government, in the rush to table it before the session ends, has failed to properly consult the experts on what the bill should look like. Now, in a race against the clock, the Liberals, if they want to be able to claim that they followed through on their promise, will need to limit the democratic debate of this bill. That is what I expect will happen.

This is not a good recipe for good legislation. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The government has stated that in 2017 and 2018, over 96 million travellers were engaged by CBSA employees, which is over 260,000 per day. They processed more than 21 million commercial shipments, which is over 57,000 per day. They processed over 46 million courier shipments, which is over 126,000 per day. This is a serious matter and deserves thorough debate.

It is our hope that the government will allow for a thorough study of this bill at committee. I also hope that the government, upon hearing from stakeholders and experts at the committee stage, will be amenable to any amendments that expert witnesses put forward. I hope that the government will allow for that work to be done in a proper fashion and is open to input by stakeholders.

This bill has been long awaited for by the community. I regret that the government has waited this long, until the eleventh hour, with only six months until the election and only five weeks of sitting in this place, to table Bill C-98. Canadians deserve to have an independent, external civilian oversight process for the CBSA. The government should have done this work much earlier to ensure that the proper process is in place for all Canadians.

[Paul Taylor, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mortgage Professionals Canada]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, committee members, good morning.

Mortgage Professionals Canada has more than 11,500 members across Canada, and I want to thank you on their behalf for giving us an opportunity to comment on Bill C-97 and the 2019 federal budget.

My name is Paul Taylor. I'm the president and CEO. With me today is Michael Wolfe, regional vice-president of residential credit for western Canada at Equitable Bank. He is also currently serving as the chair of the board of directors for Mortgage Professionals Canada.

As many on this committee know, since last year we've been asking for a number of changes to the mortgage macroprudential rules, but primarily for a reduction in the mortgage stress tests, a reintroduction of the mortgage insurance-eligible 30-year amortization for first-time buyers, a stress test exemption for borrowers who have paid as agreed to their first term and who wish to renew with a different lender, and an increase in the RRSP withdrawal limit on the first-time homebuyers plan, which was actually addressed in the budget.

These requests were made in the interest of supporting access to home ownership for younger, aspiring middle-class Canadians, whose long-term economic well-being has been disproportionately disadvantaged by the current regulatory requirements.

The federal budget contains measures that address our concerns, and our comments today will focus primarily on that subject.

First, we thank the government for implementing an increase in the homebuyers' RRSP withdrawal limit from $25,000 to $35,000. This increase is appropriate. The previous limit has been in place since the 1990s. Perhaps of even greater societal value, beginning next year the program will expand to include those who have experienced the breakdown of a marriage or a common-law relationship. We're very encouraged by this and believe it will assist people in those circumstances to find footing in a new home much more quickly. It's a good change.

The newly announced and highlighted first-time homebuyer incentive program we feel will likely not provide the support to the marketplace that is needed. Briefly, the new program aims to share equity in a home for qualifying purchasers. CMHC will own either 5% of the home if it's existing residential stock, or 10% if it's newly constructed, through a shared equity mortgage.

Because CMHC owns 5% or 10% of the home, the purchasers' monthly living expenses will be reduced because the traditional insured mortgage they take will be smaller, reduced proportionately by the size of CMHC's ownership. The difficulty we see with the program is that it doesn't assist anyone to qualify to purchase a home who wouldn't already have otherwise qualified.

Further, those who do qualify need to be comfortable with the government sharing ownership of their home. The prospective purchasers must also understand that the government will share in the appreciation or depreciation of the home at the time they come to sell it. Given that the purchasers won't require the program to qualify to purchase a home anyway, frankly, we see quite limited take-up from those who would be able to take advantage.

Additionally, the program restricts qualification to purchasers whose households earn less than $120,000 annually and limits the collective mortgage sizes to four times the actual household income. All things being equal in today's market, a family with reasonable credit would generally qualify for a traditional insured mortgage of around 4.7 or 4.8 times their household income. The new program actually further reduces the potential eligible homes, especially for those at the bottom end of the income bracket.

[Andrew Van Iterson, Manager, Green Budget Coalition]

Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members, thank you for inviting the Green Budget Coalition to speak to you today about Bill C-97.

Lisa Gue, aside from being the co-chair of the Green Budget Coalition, is the senior researcher and analyst, science and policy, for the David Suzuki Foundation.

The Green Budget Coalition, active since 1999, brings together the expertise of 22 of Canada's leading environmental organizations, collectively representing over one million Canadians, to identify budgetary opportunities to advance environmental sustainability in Canada.

Today I will provide brief feedback on the 2019 budget, and then focus on the investment in zero-emission vehicles, as well as proposed changes to the Pest Control Products Act in Bill C-97.

The Green Budget Coalition was particularly pleased that budget 2019 increased funding to address climate change by including $1 billion in support of building energy efficiency and four measures to support zero-emission vehicles. The budget also provided some details on the peer review process with Argentina of federal fossil fuel subsidies, and we are hopeful that this peer review process will assist the government in finally eliminating subsidies and non-tax support to fossil fuels.

In addition, we were pleased to see renewed funding for contaminated sites cleanup, and new funding for food policy, energy data and first nations water and waste-water infrastructure.

Turning to zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVs, approximately one-quarter of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions originate in the transportation sector. The Green Budget Coalition recommended investments to accelerate the transition to ZEVs. We need a smart strategy that helps more people buy clean cars, not only to reduce harmful emissions but also to strategically position the entire auto manufacturing industry to grow with the global transition to electric vehicles.

We were pleased to see the commitment to national targets for zero-emission vehicle sales ramping up to 100% by 2040, backed by a $300-million investment for a three-year purchase incentive program. We expect this to immediately make purchasing electric vehicles more affordable and appealing across Canada. However, it is not clear that $300 million will be sufficient over a three-year period; additional funding might be needed in budget 2020 or 2021.

We also appreciated the $130-million investment in charging stations and the proposal for businesses to be able to write off 100% of the ZEV purchase price in one year, a strong incentive for high-distance businesses such as delivery and taxi companies and school bus companies to buy more zero-emission vehicles.

However, I would highlight that the Green Budget Coalition recommended a two-pronged approach, combining purchase incentives with mandatory sales targets for zero-emission vehicles. The budget announced that Transport Canada will work with automakers to secure voluntary sales targets. We believe regulated sales targets will be necessary to complement budget 2019's funding measures to ensure a sufficient supply of ZEVs for Canadians.

Finally, I would draw your attention to proposed amendments to the Pest Control Products Act in part 4 of Bill C-97. The Green Budget Coalition has highlighted the need for increased investment to enable Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA, to deliver on its legislative obligations for post-market review of pesticides in Canada, to ensure risks to health and the environment are not unacceptable. Unfortunately, budget 2019 does not adequately address the budget crunch at PMRA. While we understand these proposed legislative changes to the Pest Control Products Act are intended to improve efficiencies, it is important that this effort not undercut the environmental and public health purposes of the act or interfere with sound decision-making.

GBC member organizations are concerned that the proposed provisions as drafted could limit public participation and reduce transparency, potentially leading to unacceptable health or environmental risks. To address this, these Green Budget Coalition members have proposed discrete amendments to maintain existing legislative guarantees of consultation and accountability and prevent further erosion of public confidence in federal pesticide regulation.

To conclude, thank you again for inviting the Green Budget Coalition to appear today. We look forward to your questions.

[Matt Ainley, Chair, General Contractors Alliance of Canada]

Thank you very much for having us at the committee meeting today.

We are the General Contractors Alliance of Canada. We are a national organization made up of over 450 general contractors across Canada. We build over 85% of the institutional, commercial and light industrial construction completed in our country on an annualized basis. Member companies range in size from small regional contractors to the 10 largest contractors in Canada.

The GCAC is a strong supporter of prompt payment in Canada and has developed extensive expertise on this subject through its involvement in the provincial prompt payment movement. Through provincial general contractor associations and local chapters, the GCAC and its member companies have been working with provincial governments in Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan to draft prompt payment legislation that achieves the objectives of both the government and industry.

The prompt payment portion of Bill C-97 is a welcome piece of legislation for the GCAC and our industry. We thank the government for working with us on this legislation, as it will make the Canadian construction industry more competitive and efficient.

Our comments today are practically based and are focused on making the bill workable, and this is an important point, so that the objectives of the bill are actually delivered as intended. We have developed a short list of recommendations.

First, proposed section 9, on submission of a proper invoice, should have a clause that would give Her Majesty and the contractor the ability, if all parties agreed, to negotiate, revise and resubmit the proper invoice within the 21-day review period while maintaining the original proper invoice submission date.

Negotiating and revising a monthly invoice is a normal industry practice, and maintaining this practice would significantly reduce adjudications. The provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan have adopted this practice. Consistency across the country is an objective of the industry.

The second point is on proposed section 16, regarding adjudication. A significant part of this function would be left to the regulations and is in the body of the act. The act should include two specific points in proposed section 16.

First is the definition of what can be adjudicated, including non-payment of a proper invoice and the cost of services or materials provided under a contract, including change orders, whether approved or not, and proposed change orders. Over 50% of construction non-payment issues are a result of a failure to pay change orders promptly. Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan have recognized this issue with their definition included in their acts. It also keeps the definition consistent from one jurisdiction to another.

Second is the ability of a contractor to consolidate the same or related adjudications in one adjudication, to be heard by one adjudicator at the same time. It's a key point. This would prevent the same adjudicated issue from being heard by two different adjudicators who might not render the same decision, thereby putting one party in an unfair financial position.

Our third point is that as Bill C-97 is currently drafted, there is no provision to deal with the specific needs of public-private partnership projects, or P3s, as they are called. The federal government has an active P3 building program. It will face issues with the lending market that currently funds P3 projects in our country. The Construction Act in Ontario has developed specific clauses with lenders and P3 companies that have properly dealt with the needs of lenders on P3 projects. The GCAC strongly encourages the government to include these in Bill C-97.

Proposed subsection 9(4), on submission of a proper invoice, refers to “verification of the construction work”. This would create confusion, as it is unclear what is meant by “verification”, as such a term is not a customary construction term. Additionally, there is no reference to a proper invoice. The GCAC proposes revising this drafting to say “certification of the proper invoice”, which includes a reference to the proper invoice and includes the term “certification”, as it is a customary construction term that is understood by our industry.

Bruce Reynolds and Sharon Vogel put together a consultation report for PSPC. It was a very good report. It went around the world and established best practices and what worked and what didn't work. It was very thorough. It outlines a number of recommendations for justice, PSPC and the government. The points we've made in our report to you are included in that report. There are many others, but these are the key ones.

The report gets to the heart of prompt payment and puts together a methodology that is really key to the success of this piece of legislation actually working in the field. That's the key part that we're trying to distinguish for you today. These changes are small, but they'll have a big impact on the day-to-day operation of the act, how the act is going to execute itself. It's not a contract; it's for when problems hit contracts. Having these pieces in place will allow those problems to resolve very quickly.

We're big supporters of the legislation. We thank the government for including it.

We look forward to questions. Thanks for hearing us.

[Darlene O'Leary, Analyst, Socio-Economic Policy, Citizens for Public Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, all, for the opportunity to be here with you today.

My name is Darlene O'Leary. I'm the socio-economic policy analyst with Citizens for Public Justice. Citizens for Public Justice, or CPJ, is a national, faith-based charitable organization that works on Canadian public policy, primarily in the areas of poverty eradication in Canada, ecological justice and refugee rights.

CPJ engages in networks of organizations working on public policy, both secular and faith-based. With our partners, Canada without Poverty, we co-lead Dignity for All, a national campaign for a poverty-free Canada. For the past decade, CPJ and the Dignity for All campaign have called for the creation of a comprehensive and legislated national anti-poverty plan for Canada. Our campaign has been endorsed by close to 800 organizations and over 12,000 individuals across the country. Today I'll speak specifically about the part of Bill C-97 that includes division 20, the poverty reduction act.

In an open letter sent to the honourable Minister Jean-Yves Duclos in February, sponsored by CPJ, Canada without Poverty and Campaign 2000 and signed by over 500 organizations and individuals, we outlined our position on the poverty reduction act and made specific recommendations to strengthen the legislation. As you know, this act, previously Bill C-87, was tabled in Parliament and went to second reading before being added without amendments to the budget implementation act.

We recommend that the poverty reduction act reflect Canada's international human rights commitments, including the commitment that Canada has made in adopting the United Nations sustainable development goals. The targets and timelines identified currently in the legislation reflect the minimum goals set out by the SDGs to reduce poverty rates by 20% by 2020 and by 50% by 2030.

ESDC is using the 2015 market basket measure rates as a starting point for these targets. However, the first SDG goal to which Canada has committed is no poverty. We recommend that the legislation be amended to reflect this as the ultimate goal with a much more ambitious timeline. Otherwise, we are failing to honour our international commitments and are implicitly claiming that it is acceptable to leave behind those remaining in poverty once the minimum goals are achieved.

We also recommend that the legislation be amended to affirm economic and social rights as ratified by Canada in international human rights law.

In addition, the legislation recognizes the new official poverty line as a market basket measure, or MBM. While the legislation indicates that the MBM be subject to regular review, it should ensure that review takes place no longer than every three years. It should also include public input to ensure that the costing of items identified as part of the basket of necessities reflects the actual costs experienced by low-income households and that the basket include an adequate and appropriate range of costs.

The current MBM base has not been updated since 2011, with a slight adjustment in 2012, though it is currently under review. That means the costs being calculated now, for example, the cost of shelter, are vastly underestimated for some communities. Given that the MBM could now be used to establish eligibility and access to needed programs and benefits for low-income people, regular and public reviews are essential.

The legislation should also recognize that no one measure of low income or costs captures the full reality of poverty. A range of publicly available data sets should be included in assessing progress in achieving targets.

Further, the new national advisory council on poverty is being established to advise and report to the minister and engage with the public in reviewing the progress of the federal poverty reduction strategy. For this council to be effective, it must be independent, adequately resourced and given authority to make recommendations and require remedial action for compliance with economic and social rights. There must be a transparent process for appointment of council members, including establishing criteria for qualifications, such as expertise focused on poverty eradication, people with lived experience of poverty and regional representation.

We recommend that proposed section 11 of the poverty reduction act, which authorizes the dissolution of the council once poverty has been reduced by 50% of 2015 levels, be removed or amended to ensure an ongoing mandate for the council to oversee a goal of sustained poverty eradication.

In addition to this legislation, we hope to see the federal government work in partnership with indigenous governments to co-develop initiatives to ensure accountability in the implementation of remedies for distinctive barriers faced by first nations, Métis and Inuit people living in poverty.

Further elaboration of our recommendations is available in the open letter and in the brief we submitted to the committee to contribute to this study.

Thank you very much for your attention.

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

Thanks for having me, Mr. Chair.

Committee members, thanks for the invitation to take part in your consultations on Bill C-97.

As you know, the Business Council of Canada represents the chief executives and entrepreneurs of 150 leading Canadian companies in all sectors and regions of the country. Our member companies employ 1.7 million Canadians and are responsible for most of Canada's exports, corporate philanthropy and private sector investment in R and D.

In the council's pre-budget submission, we asked the government to introduce a comprehensive strategy to improve competitiveness, diversify trade and attract private sector investment. Among other recommendations, we called on the government to undertake a comprehensive review of the tax system with the goal of strengthening the incentives for both investment and growth.

We therefore welcome the decision by the Government of Canada to allow temporary full expensing for investments in machinery and equipment as well as accelerated expensing for all other types of capital investment. We believe that this new measure will partially offset the negative impact on Canada's economy of recent U.S. tax changes while creating incentives for Canadian companies to make new job-creating investments. According to a recent survey of our members, 25% of respondents believe that the accelerated investment incentive will lead to an increase in capital spending at their companies.

We also welcome the introduction of the Canada training credit in budget 2019. It's no secret that competitive international pressures in new technologies are requiring workers to become more skilled more quickly. Recognizing these challenges, the Business Council of Canada has launched the business higher education round table, also known as BHER. We launched this in 2015 to connect businesses and post-secondary leaders and to help Canadians make the transition between school and work.

One key initiative under BHER is to help 100% of Canadian post-secondary education students get a work-integrated learning experience, and that's a co-op internship or applied research project. We believe the commitments that are made in budget 2019, including support for work-integrated learning and BHER specifically, are big steps in making Canada one of the most skilled countries in the world.

We also look forward to working with the government and consulting with our members regarding the design of the newly introduced Canada training benefit so it can achieve its goal of helping Canadians upgrade skills and remain active parts of the growing and changing economy.

Despite these positive announcements, we do believe that Canada still has competitiveness challenges that go much deeper than any single measure. We'll continue to urge the government to adopt a comprehensive strategy to foster business confidence, attract investment and enable the creation of new high-value jobs. This includes undertaking a comprehensive review of the tax system to both reform and simplify it and to restore our long-held tax advantage over the U.S.

In a recent survey of our CEOs, less than 10% of them expressed confidence in Canada's competitiveness. According to the survey, the tax and regulatory burdens, combined with concerns about talent, are the most important factors affecting company investment decisions and plans in Canada.

The federal budget confirmed that Canada's economy has slipped into low gear, underscoring the need for action to boost private sector confidence and ensure a future of good jobs and a high quality of life. With growth of only 1.2% forecast this year, we believe it's more important than ever for government to adopt a laser-like focus on economic growth and competitiveness.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will call the meeting to order.

For the record, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 30, 2019, we're looking at Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

We have quite a number of witnesses here this morning. If witnesses could keep their remarks to around five minutes, that would give us more time for questions.

We'll start with the Business Council of Canada, Mr. Kingston, vice-president of policy, international and fiscal.

Welcome back, Brian.

[Anthony Furey, Columnist, Postmedia, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for inviting me to speak at today's session.

I'll begin by stating that I'm here as an individual speaking in my capacity as a newspaper columnist. I'm not here as an official representative of Postmedia.

My comments today will focus on the sections in Bill C-97 that concern the new tax measures designed to support Canadian journalism. I will not be speaking about what I think is the ideal relationship between government and media—the answer is “none at all”—but on how to best move forward with what is already on the table.

This small section of the legislation, as you may have seen, has already caused controversy, coming from both regular Canadians and individuals within the media. Canadians are wary of the idea that their government would in some way favour, influence or direct the media. Not only are media professionals, so it seems, wary of this happening, they are also concerned by the mere perception that this is happening. These concerns are mostly valid and I share them.

Last November's fall economic update was not only when support for journalism was first announced, but also when the accelerated capital cost allowance for businesses was introduced. Later in the week after that came out, I wrote a column that this latter move was to be applauded, and then I faced accusations of only backing the capital cost allowance measure because that same day I had also been bought off by the current government.

As someone who does not typically face such an accusation, I concluded that if it can happen to me, it most certainly can and will happen to everyone else in my field. As such, I would like to make three recommendations about how to proceed with these tax measures in a way that minimizes both the perception and the reality of politicizing Canadian media.

These measures have become popularly known as the “media bailout”. The public is under the impression that the government is simply doling out $595 million to media outlets on a mere whim. They may not know that the main measure is in fact a 25% labour tax credit for news media employees.

My first recommendation is that a better job can be done in communicating what is going to happen. If the impression is left to linger that the government is forking over cash grants to their journalist buddies, trust in media will only plummet further.

There are many ways that can be done. As we've learned, even a simple tweet from the Prime Minister can have a great influence in informing public perception, but let's get more technical. There's the question of how to determine what organizations will be eligible for the tax credit.

The film industry has for decades had a similar tax credit. To be eligible for the federal film credit, you simply need to spend 75% of your costs in Canada and check off any six out of 10 eligibility boxes. There is no politician, board or panel that determines eligibility. It is an administrative exercise, whereas when it comes to the media credit, the government:

will establish an independent panel of experts from the Canadian journalism sector to assist the Government in implementing these measures, including recommending eligibility criteria.

I would much sooner be judged by 10 strangers than I would 10 journalists, and I imagine many other journalists feel the same way about me.

Additionally, I take issue with the notion of “an independent panel.” One of my favourite phrases in politics is fast becoming “There's nothing more partisan than an independent.”

Canadian arts grants at all levels of government are typically awarded by a jury of their peers. It is a fact that this process is considered both political and rife with petty personal drama. The administration of the film tax credit, by comparison—although they're both in the broader arts community—is a much less divisive approach.

Therefore, my second recommendation is to abandon this panel of journalism experts. Instead I recommend the government allow as many voices as possible to present their opinions and that a basic checklist of qualifications be determined out of that. This avoids creating a gatekeeper system dominated by a few and brings it more to be an administrative measure, rather than selecting criteria year by year.

My last recommendation is a technical point, but I believe if not addressed it can have troubling ramifications. The budget refers to an eligible recipient of the tax credit as “a qualified Canadian journalism organization.” This phrase has given the impression the government is determining what is and what isn't a legitimate news organization. This phrase ought to be abandoned. As with any tax credit, if you are eligible, you receive it; if you are not, you don't. There's no need for an official list and there's no need for that list to be posted online in any capacity.

Those are my three recommendations.

Thank you, and I welcome any questions you might have.

[Professor John Mark Keyes, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Mr. Chairman and honourable members, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. I'm here to speak particularly to division 19 of Bill C-97, which would enact the national housing strategy act.

Although I'm appearing on my own behalf, I am also here to support the positions advanced by the social advocacy support centre, which is a social justice NGO. It particularly concerns itself with issues of housing and homelessness.

We greatly appreciate this opportunity to speak to you about the proposed national housing strategy act. Over the past year, I've been working with the executive director of the centre, Bruce Porter. He enlisted my help as a law professor at the University of Ottawa and also as a former legislative counsel with the Department of Justice here in Ottawa.

Together with others in the social justice community, we have been developing proposals to support the rights-based approach to housing announced in the government's national housing strategy in November of 2017. We developed draft legislation and put it forward to the government through the office of Minister Duclos.

We have been particularly encouraged by chapter 1 of the strategy, which is entitled “Housing Rights Are Human Rights”. It envisages the creation of new legislation to “require the federal government to maintain a National Housing Strategy and [to] report to Parliament on housing targets and outcomes”.

Division 19 of Bill C-97 adopts many of the elements that we had suggested in our draft legislation and goes some distance towards realizing this goal by requiring the minister to “develop and maintain a national housing strategy” and establishing a housing council to provide advice to the minister.

The bill would also create a “federal housing advocate”. The responsibilities of the advocate would be “to analyze and conduct research” on housing issues; to “consult with” and “receive submissions” from persons or groups who have experienced “housing need” or “homelessness”; and, to report to the minister annually, summarizing the advocate's activities and recommending “measures within the authority of the Government of Canada to address” housing issues.

As commendable as these measures are, we would suggest that more is needed to accomplish the government's goal of a rights-based approach to housing, which it announced in November 2017. We suggest that the bill should clearly establish an accountability framework for the progressive realization of the right to housing. This right would be realized by shedding light on housing issues, conducting research on how to address them and encouraging action to address them. We are not advocating judicial or quasi-judicial enforcement of this right.

Specifically, we are suggesting the following amendments.

First of all, amend the housing policy declaration in clause 4 to affirm that housing is a fundamental human right. This would more clearly position the right to housing as the anchor of the government policy.

Secondly, clarify the policy role of the national housing council to monitor progress on the realization of this right and to advise the minister regarding its progressive realization.

Thirdly, strengthen the policy role of the federal housing advocate by elaborating duties and functions to assess and advise the federal government on the implementation of the housing policy; to initiate inquiries into incidents and conditions in a community, institution, industry or economic sector; to monitor progress in meeting goals and timelines of the housing policy; to receive and investigate submissions from affected groups; to issue opinions about compliance with the right to housing; and, finally, to provide for a review panel made up of three members appointed from the national housing council to hold hearings on key systemic issues identified by the housing advocate and to submit reports and remedial recommendations to the minister, to which the minister would have to respond within 90 days.

These amendments would ensure a more effective national housing strategy and support the progressive realization of the right to housing through policy mechanisms: namely, research, investigation and reporting. The amendments do not entail adjudicative functions and would not give rise to legally binding orders from a court or tribunal. They would instead create meaningful accountability and access to justice for the right to housing by giving a voice to concerns about systemic housing issues and ensuring that those responsible for public policy listen to those voices.

I would be pleased to explain the recommended amendments further and answer any questions you might have about the bill.

[Sandra Skivsky, Chair, National Trade Contractors Coalition of Canada]

My name is Sandra Skivsky, and I am the chair of the National Trade Contractors Coalition, NTCCC. We'd like to thank the committee for inviting us here today to talk about Bill C-97.

The NTCCC represents trade contractors. We are a group of associations that formed back in 2004 and cover the major trades across Canada. These are trade contractors who perform about 80% of the work on site and directly employ the majority of tradespeople. Our members include approximately 12,000 mostly small and medium-sized businesses.

As you mentioned, I am joined here by Geza Banfai of McMillan LLP, who has provided thoughtful input and counsel to NTCCC on this topic for more than a dozen years. He was also involved in the advisory committees, both in the Ontario prompt payment efforts and here, federally.

One of the most important issues that NTCCC is focused on—and one of the reasons we began in the first place—is getting paid for work that's properly done. It's a major issue for our members.

Our objective is to ensure that prompt payment laws will be adopted in Canada, both at the federal level and in each province. We are very pleased to say that the federal prompt payment for construction act in the 2019 budget will introduce prompt payment rules on the federal construction contracts.

In the last 10 to 15 years, payment delays on all projects in all jurisdictions across Canada have increased. Delays have become not only more common, but longer. They have grown from something like 58 to 72 days in a very short period of years, and in many cases they go beyond that. Until recently—starting with Ontario's movement—there was no enforceable language in place at any level of government to ensure the proper and timely flow of payments through the construction chain.

Why is this important? Delayed payments cause serious inefficiencies, including project delays, fewer competitive bids and less opportunity to invest. They also lead to lower employment because of the pressure on operating cash flow that a trade contractor experiences due to late and uncertain payments. In the end, fewer jobs are created, the impact of government investments is reduced, fewer apprentices are hired and, in the worst case, small businesses go bankrupt.

The Canadian construction industry needs legislative and cultural change with regard to payment practices. Our members are very excited that this legislation is included in the budget, not only because of the prompt payment and adjudication regime that applies to federal projects, but also as a standard that can facilitate prompt payment in provinces and territories that have not yet established their own regime. Consistency, which Mary alluded to, is very important.

I would like to point out, as well, that there was a great deal of consultation and industry input into the creation of this language. It covers a complex, multi-level payment system that has many permutations—almost too many to list sometimes.

There was a detailed report produced by Reynolds and Vogel with recommendations developed from those consultations and additional research. Many of those recommendations are reflected in the language.

The industry—together with legal subject matter experts—looks forward to working closely with PSPC and other groups to ensure the implementation of this federal prompt payment regime. At the end of the day, once the regulations are in place and the industry and its advisers can process the language systematically as a whole, we can then provide some thoughtful and constructive input into what amendments need to be made.

We anticipate a national, industry-wide transition that will increase the promptness of payment across construction projects and change the current cultural norm of late payments. In light of this, we wish to thank and applaud key parliamentary champions—and we had a few—who did significant heavy lifting to ensure this issue was addressed. They include Minister Carla Qualtrough and Parliamentary Secretary Steven MacKinnon and their staff, and senior officials at PSPC.

We also wish to acknowledge the Honourable Judy Sgro and Senator Don Plett, who have been with us since day one and whose tireless efforts will lead to very positive outcomes for tradespeople, our trade contractor members and the construction industry as a whole.

If you have any questions, or would like any clarifications, we would be happy to entertain them. Thank you.

[Pascale St-Onge, President, Fédération nationale des communications]

Mr. Chairman and members of the Standing Committee on Finance, on behalf of the Fédération nationale des communications, or FNC, and its 6,000 members working in the media and cultural sectors in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to provide you with our comments and suggestions on Bill C-97.

My remarks will focus mainly on measures concerning support for the written press.

First of all, the federation wishes to commend this new program, which will give a boost to our sectors, which have been heavily affected by the arrival on our markets, for more than a decade, of what are known as the Web giants. The measures in themselves will not redress the fiscal, regulatory and structural inequity that unduly benefits foreign content distribution platforms, but they will allow print, daily or weekly media companies to gain - we hope - some leeway, while many of them are facing significant liquidity problems.

We believe that the government has chosen the right measures to maintain media independence, since these are tax credits that will benefit not only recognized companies, but also media subscribers and donors. These tax measures are based on objective criteria that avoid favouritism based on an editorial line, an owner or an entrepreneurial model.

We also believe that the total amount planned, $595 million over five years, is commensurate with the industry's current needs to preserve journalistic jobs, both for print and digital newspapers that are still operating in Canada.

However, our analysis shows that it is virtually impossible for the amounts set aside for taxpayers' digital subscription tax credits, as well as those set aside for donations to philanthropic associations, to be used in their entirety.

In addition, the maximum amounts that the media can receive in payroll tax credits are far too low and do not fully reflect the reality of jobs, particularly in large cities. We estimate the average salary of Quebec unionized newsroom employees to be about $76,000. This figure will have to be increased when we add the managers who also work in the production of information content. It is also conceivable that it is higher in large Canadian cities such as Toronto, Calgary, Ottawa or Montreal.

It would be a pity if the program, in its current form, did not achieve the desired objective, which is to maintain the businesses and jobs that provide Canadians with access to quality professional news information. We therefore recommend the following changes.

First, the government's estimate of $235 million for digital subscription and philanthropy tax credits should be reduced.

Second, we recommend increasing the salary cap for payroll tax credits from the current $55,000 to $85,000 or $90,000 and, perhaps, to slightly expand the types of employment that would be eligible for these tax credits. If these changes were made, the maximum tax credit would be increased to $22,500 per job, rather than $13,750 as currently provided for in the budget.

The arguments in favour of such changes are numerous. First, the main Canadian newspapers with pay walls that actually work are The Globe and Mail and Le Devoir. With the information available largely free of charge on the Internet, fewer taxpayers have got into the habit of paying for their subscriptions online. The digital subscription is also much cheaper than the paper version.

For example, the annual paper subscription at Le Devoir is $311, while the digital subscription is $213. On the Globe and Mail side, the annual paper subscription is $527, while the digital subscription is $323.

Statistics Canada data show that Canadian households spent an average of $15 on newspaper subscriptions annually in 2016. This average is declining, particularly due to the number of households that no longer subscribe to the paper version.

Based on the trends, we can assume that today, this average should represent about $14 per household, which totals $196 million in subscription spending for all Canadian households. If 40% of these households subscribed to the digital version and each taxpayer subscribed to the two media I mentioned earlier, they would be able to take advantage of the maximum tax credit, that is, a $75 tax refund for expenses up to $500. This would bring the program to about $12 million per year.

This rate of taxpayer reporting is a scenario that is artificially inflated. One hundred per cent of Canadian households that make these expenditures on digital subscriptions would have to claim the amounts on their tax returns. It is almost impossible for the cost of this measure to reach $60 million over five years, leaving $176 million over five years for tax credits for charitable donations to recognized media. These tax credits currently amount to 15% for an initial amount of $200, and 29% for the following $500.

At present only two major enterprises would likely be recognized, i.e. Le Devoir and La Presse, because of their constitution as a trust or foundation. All of the profits of these two companies are in fact reinvested. Taxpayers would have to make astronomical charitable donations to these two daily newspapers to use the other portion of the program and reach $176 million over five years. This means that the $235 million in tax credits provided for under these two programs would not be fully used after five years. That is why we say that raising the salary cap would be a good way to ensure that the entire envelope can benefit newspapers and really help them maintain their activities.

The ultimate goal is to keep newspapers alive that have been severely shaken by the significant drop in their advertising revenues, now captured by foreign companies enjoying unfair tax and legislative privileges. While this kind of unfair competition seems intolerable in any market, it jeopardizes the very foundations of our democracy in the journalistic information sector. Until this unfair treatment is remedied, let us at least ensure that the measures to support print media companies are sufficient to enable them to face the years to come and play their full role. Journalism is a public good and must be recognized as such. It is the expression of freedom of the press, which is a fundamental right guaranteed in our charters.

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer your questions.