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.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I had my staff do just a bit more research on “Indigenous governing body”. I asked them to do a search on where that term also exists.

The term exists in Bill C-35, the early learning and child care in Canada act; in Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages; Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence; Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts; and Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019.

I haven't looked at how these might differ from each other.

Having said that, have you been able to assess whether or not there are similarities or differences between what's in this act and what these other acts might be?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you for that.

The Canadian government says it's “modernizing” the safe third country agreement. That's the term it uses. It won't actually tell us what that means and what its plans are in the negotiations with the United States.

What we've seen, of course, is that the government, in a hidden kind of way, expanded the use of the safe third country agreement. In the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-97, a 379-page document, the government snuck in there the safe third country agreement application to the Five Eyes countries. That automatically turns people away if they try to seek asylum here in Canada.

Do you think that's right?

This question is directed to The Refugee Centre. I don't know who wants to respond to that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I want to follow up on the call to action, because when the Pamour mine went down and the Kerr-Addison gold mine, one of the richest mines in the country, was stripped of its assets and the pensioners were left with nothing, the pensioners believed that they had savings, but they were lied to, and then they found that they were at the back of the line.

When I hear people say how unfair it is that we move these people, who spent their lives and literally gave the health of their lives to the company, and that somehow we're going to affect business if we give them any priority.... What happened at Pamour happened 30 years ago. I would have thought that it would have changed, but then I look at Sears. Then we are told “Oh well, it's a bricks-and-mortar business and they can't compete”, blah, blah, blah. Sears was a damn good business. It was taken over by a hedge fund bandit, Eddie Lampert, who stripped it. Again, it was perfectly legal.

We had legislation brought in that was supposed to protect those Sears workers. What lessons have we learned? Did Bill C-97 do the job it was supposed to do, or are we just continually letting these bandits rob pension funds and strip assets out of good, valuable companies?

[Siobhan Vipond, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello to you and all the committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to appear in front of you.

My name is Siobhán Vipond, and I'm the executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Canada's largest central labour body. We, as Canada's unions, advocate on national issues on behalf of all workers from coast to coast to coast.

Pensions are essential to the financial security and well-being of working people. Canadian research shows that income from an employer pension plan can make the difference between financial security in retirement and a decline in living standards, compared to pre-retirement levels. Next to their homes, pension savings are one of the most important pools of assets that workers accumulate over their lifetimes.

It’s important to remember that workplace pensions are not gifts from employers. Pension benefits are deferred wages. Pensions are earned and paid for by workers, and workers depend on that money being there for them when they retire. Employers are legally obligated to provide those pensions when a worker retires. It is frustrating and unjust that this legal obligation can be torn up when a company enters insolvency.

When a company enters insolvency proceedings, workers and pensioners go to the back of the line. They are essentially treated like involuntary unsecured creditors of the firm, behind the banks and the secured creditors. No one asked workers and plan members if they would lend the value of their pension benefits to their employer. It's quite the opposite. Plan members trust that their employer will live up to the terms of the pension bargain.

Unlike commercial creditors, employees and pensioners are generally unable to protect themselves against the risk of their employer’s insolvency. If their previous employer enters bankruptcy, pensioners cannot easily return to work and find new and additional sources of income.

In 2018, Sears Canada pensioners outside Ontario learned that their pension benefits would be reduced by 30%. One Sears retiree in Calgary—which happens to be my hometown—who had worked for 44 years took a monthly pension cut of $800 a month. After a lifetime of work and a lifetime of pension contributions, his pension was slashed in retirement.

Another retiree, who had worked for 35 years, saw his pension drop by $450. In anticipation of benefit reductions, this 72-year-old pensioner took a job at Home Depot as a greeter. For many others, taking a minimum-wage job to make up for pension reductions is not a realistic option, nor should it be an expectation.

The way pensions and benefits are treated in insolvency is outrageous and unfair. Despite this, the government has not taken steps to extend protections to pensioners and plan members.

The government’s legislated changes in response to the Sears Canada debacle were woefully inadequate. In 2019, Bill C-97 made minor changes around the edges of the problem. None of these legislated changes would have prevented another Sears Canada, or the pain and suffering it caused for Sears pensioners.

This is especially frustrating since the evidence shows that many companies with underfunded pension plans could eliminate the solvency deficiencies of their plans by allocating just a portion of their shareholders' payouts to the pension plan. Studies show that many firms consciously choose to reward shareholders and senior executives, boosting the stock prices, rather than fully funding their pension plans. This leaves pensioners and plan members at risk if the company becomes insolvent.

Over the years, we at the CLC have supported numerous NDP and Bloc members' bills. None of these bills have been allowed to proceed. For years, we have urged governments to put in place national mandatory pension insurance akin to the Ontario pension benefits guarantee fund. We have been unable to get traction on this idea.

The CLC supports the passage of the revised Bill C-228, and we support the bill’s proposed changes to the CCAA and BIA. The proposed amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act are not well conceived and should be deleted from Bill C-228 in their entirety.

We will be very happy to answer any questions you may have. At the centre of this issue are the workers and pensioners across this country.

Thank you for your attention.

[Brian Myles]

I am going to add to what Mr. Jamison said earlier. I belong to the school of thought that wants a bundle of measures to support the news media. We didn't say it, but we believe that all of the federal programs contained in the Budget Impementation Act, 2019, No. 1, should be retained, even if Bill C‑18 were passed.

The model applied under Bill C‑18, referred to as the Australian model, compensates the news media based on digital coverage or number of journalists in a newsroom. Ultimately, it is difficult to support and accept for small weekly papers, for small publications and for emerging players, which do not have a big market position or broad digital coverage and which have small newsrooms. Those media may be disappointed with Bill C‑18.

That is why we have to reform the Local Journalism Initiative, or LJI. I have been on the jury, and we did our best based on our knowledge and the parameters we had. By force of circumstances, the program benefited a number of companies that were national players and were very well established in their market. To be completely transparent, I have to say that Le Devoir has been able to fund positions using the LJI. I believe this program could be reformed to ensure that it places greater priority on small players and on emerging players. The question of the number of paid jobs in a newsroom should also be reviewed. The LJI could help to encourage more innovation and the growth of publications in fragile markets. I think we could produce a better LJI that was targeted to the needs of local communities.

[Sahar Raza, Project Manager, National Right to Housing Network]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the finance committee.

My name is Sahar Raza. I am the project manager of the National Right to Housing Network, a network of over 350 organizations and experts from across the housing and homelessness sector, including FRAPRU, which we heard from earlier today. We are all dedicated to seeing the meaningful implementation of the right to adequate housing, which Canada has committed to in both domestic and international law.

In fact, it was this very committee that adopted key amendments to the National Housing Strategy Act in 2019 in order to recognize adequate housing as a fundamental human right, so it really is an honour to be here today to discuss how we can turn that transformational human rights commitment into practical solutions that can actually address this housing crisis.

As we know, financialization is a major driver of the housing crisis, because housing is being treated as a profit-making commodity rather than a social good and human right. While increasing supply is certainly important, particularly in rural, remote and northern areas, supply alone will not get us out of this housing crisis. We are losing affordable housing stock at a faster rate than we can possibly produce it, and that means we need to revamp ineffective housing programs and policies to better utilize our current housing supply. We need to close tax loopholes and increase investments in non-market housing, for which our stock is about half that of other OECD and comparable countries.

For starters, we know that large corporate landlords, such as real estate investment trusts, are huge drivers of financialization. They are known for buying up affordable housing stock, “renovicting” low- and middle-income tenants, and then jacking up home prices, which makes housing even more unaffordable. Yet, in a recent study by ACORN Canada, it was estimated that just over the last 10 years these real estate investment trusts have benefited from more than $1.2 billion in tax exemptions, compared to if we were to just tax them like a normal corporation. If we look to international human rights guidelines, they actually tell us that we need to close these types of real estate loopholes and then reinvest that tax money in our national housing strategy. There's a huge opportunity here to simply use the tax money being left on the table to improve our housing supply, to repair our current homes and for programs for people in greatest housing need.

Along that vein, there's also an opportunity here to increase taxes on all private investments or investors who own multiple properties, because, as we've seen, existing homeowners and investors are seeing a major equity gain, which means that they are easily able to take that equity alongside low interest rates and buy even more investment properties or else pass that wealth on to their children, which makes it even more difficult for renters and first-time homebuyers to break into the market. We're even seeing disadvantaged groups experience that disadvantage multiplied generationally.

These are highly inequitable outcomes that violate the right to housing, but again, they can be easily addressed through regulatory and tax measures such as an incremental tax for each additional property beyond your primary residence, or through national speculation and vacancy taxes, all to disincentivize profit-hoarding in the housing market. Again, this money can be reinvested in our national housing strategy to improve supply and so on.

However, I will say now that our existing national housing strategy requires a major rights-based revamp, because its capital funds, like the rental construction financing initiative—which, by the way, holds the biggest price tag of all programs in the strategy—have extremely lenient and short-term affordability guidelines that simply do not target low-income households. Just to exemplify that, many NHS-funded projects are unaffordable for up to 90% of renters. This means that we are actually using government funds to drive the housing crisis instead of addressing the housing crisis.

This could easily be reformed if we just think of some new criteria for these capital funds. For example, we could require that a certain percentage of units be permanently affordable at rents geared to income for every new development. We can implement anti-displacement or anti-eviction regulations. We can implement rent controls. We can dedicate more funds from these capital initiatives to non-market housing.

I will end here, but these are just a few of the practical human rights-based solutions that we can implement today to ensure that every person in Canada has access to adequate and affordable housing, which I think is the goal that we all share here at this table.

Thank you for your time. I very much look forward to your questions.

[Krista James, National Director, Canadian Centre for Elder Law]

Madam Chair and honourable committee members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

I speak for the Canadian Centre for Elder Law. We conduct research and develop reports and educational tools on legal and policy issues related to aging. You will find many elder abuse resources on our website. Last month, we completed a study paper on elder abuse for the B.C. Council to Reduce Elder Abuse. We are presently updating our “Practical Guide to Elder Abuse and Neglect Law in Canada”, with funding from the Department of Justice victims fund.

We commend the committee for setting aside time to study elder abuse in Canada.

I will first speak briefly to the sufficiency of existing Criminal Code provisions and then comment on some other prevention and response issues within the federal jurisdiction.

First, elder abuse includes different kinds of victimization, which require different policy and legal responses. Roughly, elder abuse includes interpersonal family violence and neglect; financial abuse under a power of attorney or another legal document; fraud, scams and professional cons; and then, finally, abuse and neglect in institutional settings.

In terms of interpersonal violence, older people are mostly harmed by people they care about—often, dependent family members. Most seniors do not want their child or grandchild to go to jail; they just want the abuse to stop. When they are harmed by con artists, they are more supportive of prosecution. Family members want corporations penalized for neglecting older adults living in long-term care.

We concur with previous comments that the existing age-neutral Criminal Code provisions are largely adequate for responding to elder abuse in Canada. That said, the proposal by Mr. Webb, from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, for a Criminal Code provision on criminal endangerment to facilitate the prosecution of neglect in long-term care merits study.

Further, we recommend legal research into, one, the effectiveness of existing Criminal Code provisions for addressing violence against other populations, such as women and children and, two, the U.S. experience with criminal law responses to elder abuse.

We are part of a law reform agency at the Canadian Centre for Elder Law. We believe that law reform is ideally informed by robust comparative research that allows us to learn from the mistakes and the victories of others. Many states in the U.S. penalize elder abuse criminally. We need a better understanding of these experiences before we follow their lead. We recommend that the Government of Canada fund this research.

Although Criminal Code enforcement falls largely to the provinces and the territories, the Government of Canada has a significant role to play. For example, law enforcement in smaller communities across Canada is by the RCMP, which requires funding for better outreach and response. Much of the police response to elder abuse is attending on site to provide information and referral. Social worker/counsellor and police detective pairings make for great on-site support for older adults.

Most jurisdictions do not have a Crown counsel policy regarding how to work with victims and witnesses who have mental capacity issues, including, for example, dementia. The Government of Canada can provide leadership in supporting research and policy development in this area, perhaps by bringing back the federal elder abuse initiative, which has funded some excellent resource development in Canada. The government could also support interjurisdictional knowledge exchange on this topic, possibly through the federal-provincial-territorial working group on seniors issues.

While punishment can be very important, we encourage the committee to apply a victim-and-survivor-centred lens that gives attention to the unique needs of different vulnerable populations in Canada. This approach highlights many responsibilities that are within the federal jurisdiction, beyond the Criminal Code.

First, a number of populations that are particularly vulnerable to abuse fall under the federal jurisdiction, for example, indigenous peoples and immigrants and refugees. Both groups require better support when they experience abuse and neglect, and you can imagine some unique vulnerability here.

Second, and my final point, the recently passed National Housing Strategy Act codified a human right to housing in Canada. It requires the minister responsible to develop and maintain a national housing strategy that addresses persons most in need of housing, which includes, according to Canada’s national housing strategy, both seniors and people fleeing violence.

There is only one transition house in Canada developed to meet the needs of older women. In many communities, the only emergency housing for older men is a homeless shelter.

The Atira report, “Promising Practices across Canada for Housing Women who are Older and Fleeing Violence or Abuse”, identified a significant lack of appropriate temporary housing for older women. More recently, the UN special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing called for national-level leadership in realizing the right to housing for vulnerable populations in Canada.

Thank you very much.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you for that answer.

Chair, I'd like to switch gears a bit and ask about something that came out of the budget implementation act of 2019, which is legislation around the establishment of a new college of immigration and citizenship consultants.

I think all of us around the table have had experiences in this area. I've heard stories about immigration consultants who can run the gamut from very reputable to not so much. I'd like the deputy to give us an update on the status of the college of immigration and citizenship consultants.

[Véronique Laflamme, Spokesperson, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain]

Hi, everyone.

My name is Véronique Laflamme. Today, I am representing the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, FRAPRU, which is a Quebec‑wide group of housing committees, tenants' associations and citizens' committees from various regions of Quebec.

We have 140 groups in Quebec, 30 of which are active groups that work daily with tenants, mainly low‑ and modest‑income tenants, and with people who want to start social housing projects. Our groups support these projects, and provide support and services to tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants. In the context of the current pandemic, our groups receive many calls from tenants who are worried about losing their homes or who have reached the threshold of being able to pay.

FRAPRU is a group that promotes the right to housing, a right to which Canada committed itself as a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but also by recently adopting, last June, Bill C-97, which included the recognition of the right to housing.

I would point out that the right to housing includes protection against eviction and a criterion relating to the ability to pay, which every home must meet, and that it must be implemented progressively, not regressively, using the maximum available resources.

The current pandemic highlights the interrelation between the right to adequate income, the right to health, the right to food and the right to housing. The particular consequences of the lack of decent housing for the homeless in particular have just been clearly highlighted by the person who spoke before me, but the consequences for seniors are also revealed by the current situation. It is important to remember that there are many seniors who are not in public institutions, but rather in rooming houses or in poor housing situations.

FRAPRU's main concern in the current pandemic is therefore to avoid mass evictions after the end of the health emergency. In most provinces and in Quebec, there is a moratorium on tenant evictions during the health emergency. Unfortunately, in most cases, this will disappear at the end of the pandemic. Since tenants' ability to pay is affected, we fear a wave of mass evictions, particularly because of the lack of employment insurance for many low‑income workers, despite the income assistance provided by the Canada emergency response benefit.

We are concerned that many people will not be able to pay their rent and that they will be even more precarious after the pandemic, not to mention those who will not be able to return to work or low‑income households that do not qualify for these programs. I am thinking in particular of low‑income retirees and people on social assistance who have to pay more for food because of the closure of resources that often allow them to have access to some free food. These people will become more vulnerable and will have a harder time paying their rent because of the pandemic and the end of various services.

So our main concern is to avoid evictions during the pandemic, but we're also thinking about what will happen afterwards. We are well aware that this is a provincial jurisdiction, but it remains a concern that the federal government must have, given its commitments to housing rights.

Our other concern has to do with the ability to pay. The Canadian government has been able to take action on the income side, particularly through the benefit programs that have been announced but, as I was saying, we don't think that will be enough, for a number of reasons. It isn't yet the case in all Quebec cities, but in several Canadian cities, the $2,000 is close to the amount charged for rent—it's important to remember that. In Toronto and Vancouver, but also in Montreal, many tenants are already paying $1,500 or more in rent. Therefore, additional resources are needed. Later on, I will suggest some measures that could be implemented by the federal government.

At the same time, I would point out that tenants are all the more vulnerable to eviction because hundreds of thousands of them were already in core housing need at the time of the last census. In fact, 1.7 million tenant households in Canada were paying more than the standard of 30% of their income for housing, and 800,000 tenant households in Canada, including 195,000 in Quebec, were spending more than half of their income on housing.

This prevents them from meeting their other basic needs.

Food banks were already highlighting the impact of the lack of affordable housing on the increased demand for food assistance. These situations are exacerbated by the current pandemic. There was a pre‑existing housing crisis in Quebec and in several Canadian cities because of the scarcity of affordable rental housing, but especially because of the high cost of housing, which was already leading to the exclusion of many tenants from their neighbourhoods. Finally, there was also a context of real estate speculation, which is still present and will unfortunately not disappear with the pandemic.

The major problem in Canada is the lack of alternatives for all these tenants. At FRAPRU, we have often highlighted the fact that this crisis has been caused by the lack of social housing and the federal government's withdrawal from housing outside the private market, whether it be low‑rent housing, co‑ops or non‑profit organizations. According to the OECD, Canada ranks 16th in terms of its percentage of social housing. Social housing accounts for 4% of Canada's housing stock.

As Ms. Arbaud said, in this case social housing is inaccessible to many, making many tenants even more vulnerable to eviction. They have nowhere else to go, which leads to more homelessness.

In the current context, bearing in mind that Quebec's areas of jurisdiction must be respected, the demands we are making of the federal government are not the same as those we are making of the Quebec government. First of all, we are talking about a contingency fund. Yesterday, the government announced assistance measures of this type, including loans for commercial rents. We believe that this requires a contingency fund and not just interest‑free loans, because we must avoid increasing debt. It takes special grants and then perhaps interest‑free loans for tenants.

In Canada, particularly in Ontario, there is already such a fund to help people who, for one reason or another, can't pay their rent. It could be set up by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which already manages mortgage loans.

Then there is the funding of emergency rent supplement programs. Rent supplement programs have been federally subsidized in the past. They can be managed by the provinces, which have infrastructure. These programs need to be funded quickly to help people stay in their homes with financial assistance.

At the same time, funds must be made available now to rehabilitate the social housing that Ottawa has funded in the past. This would make it possible to quickly rehouse people who can no longer afford to pay their current rent. Because of underfunding by the federal government, 300 social housing units are shuttered in Montreal alone. Renovating these units would not take as long as building new ones.

[James van Raalte]

The results of the one-for-one rule speak for themselves. We have seen a net reduction financially in cost to businesses in terms of administrative burden.

To go to a two-for-one rule, from an analytical perspective, the jury is still out in terms of the experiences from other countries. The U.K. has rolled back its efforts in terms of going from one-to-one to one-to-two to one-to-three, and in fact, it has eliminated the rule altogether.

Mexico introduced a two-for-one initiative and has scaled that back to a one-for-one initiative, and we are still seeing how that is performing. Spain has a one-for-one rule, and we are watching what they're doing. It depends on what the government is trying to accomplish in terms of administrative burden and looking across at the other tools in the tool box that we have.

We are looking at an annual administrative regulatory modernization bill. The first one was part of the budget implementation act last year in terms of removing regulatory irritants that businesses had identified. We expect to bring forward, with the minister's permission, another reg-mod bill in this session.

I've spoken a little about regulatory reviews, and so has my colleague. It's a question of a balanced package in terms of moving forward on the modernization of Canada's regulatory framework.

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise in committee of the whole to discuss the supplementary estimates (A). I will speak to the spending connected to my files.

Canadians need a transportation system that allows them to safely and efficiently reach their destinations and receive goods for their daily lives. Businesses and customers expect a transportation system they can trust to deliver resources and products to market and for the jobs on which they depend.

The transport file includes other significant challenges, such as air and ocean pollution, public safety and security, and economic opportunities for all Canadians. In all, transport activities account for around 10% of Canada's GDP. The federal transport file includes Transport Canada and various Crown corporations, agencies and administrative tribunals, all of which do important work to serve Canadians. These important federal organizations strive to keep making Canada's transportation network safer, greener, more secure and more efficient.

Transport Canada, which includes the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, and Marine Atlantic, both of which are crown corporations, is seeking additional financing resources through the 2019-20 supplementary estimates (A). Transport Canada is seeking an increase of $227.1 million in the supplementary estimates. This includes $223.9 million in voted appropriations for 12 different items.

At this time, I will focus my remarks on the department's three largest items. These are $165.5 million for the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program; $31.5 million to address indigenous people's marine and environmental priorities regarding the Trans Mountain expansion project; and, finally, $10.5 million for the rail safety improvement program.

The Government of Canada's incentives for zero-emission vehicles program helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to an environmentally responsible transportation network by promoting the adoption of this type of vehicle. Between May 1, when the program was launched, and November 24, 30,000 Canadian individuals and businesses received the point-of-sale incentive. Canada made a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The incentives for zero-emission vehicles program will help us meet that target.

To meet the demand for incentives, Transport Canada has had to advance funding from future years. Canadians understand that protecting the environment and growing the economy go hand in hand. The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project has the potential to create thousands of good middle-class jobs and generate billions of dollars to help fund clean energy solutions.

To address marine safety and environmental concerns raised about the Trans Mountain expansion project by indigenous groups, Transport Canada is leading on three measures: providing indigenous coastal communities with access to web-based maritime information; funding for marine safety equipment and training; and, finally, supporting a demonstration to advance low-noise and low-emission crude oil tankers servicing the Trans Mountain expansion. This includes up to $30 million to support the crude oil tanker technology demonstration program, which will support the construction of next-generation quiet vessel tankers powered by liquefied natural gas.

Reducing underwater noise and air emissions from those tankers will help mitigate the impacts of marine shipping on the environment, including vulnerable marine mammals such as the southern resident killer whale. Another $1.5 million will support the enhanced maritime situational awareness initiative, allowing three more indigenous communities to become pilot host communities. These funds will allow the department to continue to develop meaningful relationships with indigenous communities through the project.

I am proud to point out that Canada has one of the safest rail networks in the world, due in part to initiatives like the rail safety improvement program, which provides funding to improve rail safety security and reduce injuries and fatalities related to rail transportation. The program funds various activities, including roadway and intersection improvements, such as adding sidewalks, diversion roads, flashing lights, bells, gates and even full pedestrian overpasses, the adoption of innovative safety technologies for detection, data recording and communication, and research or studies related to enhancing the safety of rail lines. In the supplementary estimates, Transport Canada is seeking to defer nearly $10.5 million to reimburse funding recipients for eligible expenses that they incurred but have not yet submitted for reimbursement.

Other important measures include $1.5 million to help Transport Canada continue its work to protect and recover southern resident killer whales. This funding for the whales initiative would reduce the economic impacts on the shipping industry of an expanded voluntary vessel slowdown off the coast of British Columbia. Through a contribution agreement, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority would administer funds to eligible vessel operators to offset the additional pilotage costs from participating in the slowdown.

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority is also seeking approval to defer $26.1 million. The deferred funds would be used for a bomb detection system and other projects to streamline and increase screening activities. In budget 2019 and Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, the Government of Canada committed to ensure the transition of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority from an agent Crown corporation to an independent, not-for-profit screening authority that would be responsible for providing air safety screening services.

Marine Atlantic provides a constitutionally mandated ferry service to and from Newfoundland. This is a vital service for travellers as well as for the companies that do business in that region. It brings more than one-quarter of all visitors to Newfoundland as well as two-thirds of all freight, including 90% of perishables and time-sensitive goods.

Through these supplementary estimates, Marine Atlantic is seeking $3 million in 2019-20 for fleet renewal to procure a new ferry. I am proud to be resuming my role as Minister of Transport in no small part because I am proud of the ongoing achievements of Transport Canada and other federal organizations in this important portfolio.

Our roads, our railways, our ports, our ferry services and our airports must be integrated and sustainable. They must enable Canadians and businesses to access world markets.

Our transportation system is vital for our economy and for our quality of life. I am looking forward to continuing the work we did during my first four years in this role.

There is no doubt that the financial resources requested under these supplementary estimates will enable us to continue this work.

I am ready to take questions.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Well, as I said, Monsieur Dubé, we have had an enormous volume of work to get through, as has this committee, as has Parliament, generally. The work program has advanced as rapidly as we could make it. It takes time and effort to put it all together. I'm glad we're at this stage, and I hope the parliamentary machinery will work well enough this week that we can get it across the finish line.

It has been a very significant agenda, when you consider there has been Bill C-7, Bill C-21, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-37, Bill C-46, Bill C-66, Bill C-71, Bill C-59, Bill C-97, Bill C-83, Bill C-93 and Bill C-98. It's a big agenda and we have to get it all through the same relatively small parliamentary funnel.

Housing

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

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

Every Canadian deserves a safe, affordable and accessible place to call home. However, as we all know, one of the hardest things for a first-time homebuyer is to scrape together enough funds for a down payment and cover the associated costs of a home purchase. That is why budget 2019 announced a number of new initiatives to make it more affordable for Canadians to buy a home.

This builds on Canada's national housing strategy by taking concrete action to increase access to housing that is affordable and to help middle-class Canadians realize their dream of owning a home.

To address the difficulty that young families may be have in becoming homeowners, budget 2019, through Bill C-97, which is currently before Parliament, proposes a new first-time homebuyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the CMHC, Canadians can lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership within reach. Qualified first-time homebuyers who save their minimum 5% down payment would be eligible for a 10% shared equity mortgage for a newly built home or a 5% shared equity mortgage for an existing home.

That means that first-time homebuyers will be able to save money every month, giving them more money to pay down their traditional mortgage sooner or to spend on their priorities.

It is expected that approximately 100,000 first-time homebuyers will benefit from this incentive over the next three years. The program criteria will make it easier for eligible first-time homebuyers to buy homes they can afford.

The even more generous incentive for new builds may also encourage home construction, which will address some of the housing supply shortages in Canada, particularly in our largest cities.

Bill C-97 also proposes to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit from $25,000 to $35,000. That means first-time homebuyers will be able to withdraw larger amounts from their RRSPs in order to buy a home. This is the first time the withdrawal limit has been increased in 10 years.

In closing, the new measures set out in budget 2019 will make housing more affordable by lowering the barriers to home ownership for first-time homebuyers and stimulating the Canadian housing market.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 28, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Beloeil—Chambly to the motion at third reading of Bill C-97.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.

Yesterday was World Environment Day. Tomorrow is World Oceans Day. We would hope that the government would have some imagination, knowing that we are in a state of crisis. There is a climate emergency happening right now, and if we do not take action, there will be catastrophic climate change, which we are seeing right now.

I am from Vancouver Island. In January, as members are probably aware and have heard me speak about, we had the largest windstorm in recorded history. In February, we had the largest snowstorm in recorded history. In March, we had the largest drought in recorded history.

Here in Ottawa, on the river, in two of the last three years we have had the largest floods in the recorded history of this region.

We are having forest fires on Vancouver Island right now, for the first time in my memory, and I was born and raised on Vancouver Island. The salmon are struggling to make it to their migration routes. The Cowichan area is at 25% water levels. Members have probably heard from my colleague in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford that the government needs to invest in the Cowichan weir and invest in ways to mitigate the impacts of climate change. However, we have not seen the bold action we need.

We have talked a lot about climate and economic equality. The time for talk is over. We need bold and courageous action. Our leader from Burnaby South has put forward a bold, courageous plan, power to change, to move us forward. It is a plan that includes working together, taking climate leadership, creating good jobs for everyone, improving where we live and work, improving how we get around, powering our communities carbon-free and protecting our land and water.

We talk about getting results. We know we need to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030. There is an incredible movement happening, as we know. Greta Thunberg, a young woman from Sweden, is leading a movement around the world. She is mobilizing youth. Youth are asking to be heard, and we are listening at our end of the House.

I walked with Youth Environmental Action in the Comox Valley. There were 300 young people from George P. Vanier high school and Mark R. Isfeld Secondary and the elementary schools. Grandparents, parents, cousins and aunts and uncles walked with them in support to give them strength and ensure that they are being heard and that we bring their voices to floor of the House of Commons. Just last week, at Wood Elementary School in Port Alberni, the kids walked out and demanded action on climate change. We need to listen to them.

Last week at the FCM, there was a new climate caucus created. Local governments are not seeing action from the federal government. They are calling on us to take further action, bold and courageous action. We need to listen to local governments and their leaders in our communities.

It is a privilege to follow my friend from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who is the first electrification critic from any party. We have an opportunity to take bold action and electrify vehicles across this country. It can be done. In Norway right now, 53% of vehicles are electrified. Norway's goal is that by 2025, any new vehicles sold will be EVs. It is happening around the world.

Taking bold climate action is good for the economy. Sweden has reduced its emissions by 25% and has grown its economy by 50%. California has seen its GDP rise by 35%, and it has reduced its emissions by 25% per capita. This is the kind of bold leadership that helps grow the economy, tackles inequality and moves us forward in taking this crisis seriously. This is the kind of bold leadership our country can take. There are models around the world and there are leaders around the world who are doing this. We need to join them.

I am calling on the government to take real action. In their budget, the Liberals committed $300 million to an energy retrofit program. We wanted to see that. It is something we are happy to see get started.

However, when the Liberals talk about balancing the environment and the economy, there is no balance. They bought a raw bitumen pipeline for $4.5 billion. We know that if they twin it, that will accelerate to $15 billion. Therefore, $300 million and $15 billion is not balancing the environment and the economy, far from it.

Organizations in my riding, like Hakai Energy Solutions and Synergy Electrical Installations, have been calling for a home energy retrofit program, something that is bold and courageous, and $300 million across this incredibly large country of ours will not get us there.

I wanted to touch on that, because this is a crisis. There are so many opportunities for us to move forward.

Before I go any further, I would like to take a minute to recognize my colleague, the member for Avalon, who is the chair of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. He is turning 60 on Saturday. I wish him a happy birthday, and I hope we all can do that. It is always nice to acknowledge our colleagues in the House.

The government has talked about investing in our salmon and fish. We are in a crisis in British Columbia. Six species, Chinook salmon being one of them, are endangered and six are threatened. This is impacting sport, commercial, indigenous and recreational fishers all across the coast of British Columbia with recent closures.

The government talks a good game. It talks about how it is investing in salmon at record levels. It talks about a coastal restoration fund, $75 million over five years coast to coast to coast, which is a drop in the bucket. That is $15 million a year that has been slow to move out and that has not shown up in most of the communities I represent. We are in a state of crisis with our salmon. We know restoration dollars go far. However, our hatcheries have not seen an increase in 29 years.

I just met with the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation. Chief Moses Martin and his council asked me to bring the message to Ottawa, that the government needs to accelerate money in enhancement and it needs to do it right away.

The Liberals announced their new B.C. restoration fund of $142 million. They understand and say that there is a crisis, but what do they do? They rollout $17 million for the whole coast of British Columbia. Again, organizations like West Coast Aquatic in my riding have been denied funding from coastal restoration funds. They have been denied money from the B.C. salmon restoration fund. This is not how we deal with a crisis.

Again, this is how the Liberal government continues to respond to crises, whether it be on our salmon restoration, climate crisis or our housing crisis, rolling out a 10-year plan.

The Liberals talk a good game about the oceans protection plan and plastics. We have not seen them invest in mitigating the impact of plastics. We hope this month when the Liberals rollout their response to my motion, Motion No. 151, on a national strategy to combat ocean plastics, there will be money behind it to take on these really important issues and also some regulations to eliminate single-use plastics, like the EU and India have done. It is real action.

I also want to talk about the oceans protection plan. The Liberals had scheduled to spend $145 million in 2017-18; they spent $105 million. They scheduled to spend $263 million in 2018-19; they spent $217 million. The shortfall total is $86 million. This is their world-class delay in spending money, not their world-class oceans protection plan.

Again, people in my communities are not talking to their neighbours, saying “Hey, there's a world-class oceans protection plan protecting our oceans”. In fact, they are saying that the government is not acting with the sense of urgency we need to protect our oceans.

It is the same thing for housing. Real estate prices have gone up over 50% in my riding over the last three years. The government has been slow in dragging out its funds.

On indigenous languages, the government has been slow in getting money out the door. It does not provide the flexibility that is needed for indigenous languages. In fact, there is a project in my riding for an indigenous languages revitalization pole and the government has no flexibility to fund that, which is very important to the Nuu-chah-nulth people.

A lot of issues and things are not in this budget, such as pharmacare, money for the opioid crisis, and I could go on and on.

I hope the government is listening. I hope we see some urgent action on these issues on which we can work together.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is really appropriate to be splitting my time with the member for Surrey—Newton, because he is on one coast of Canada and I am on the other, and just like this budget, we cover the country from coast to coast.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-97. This bill does what we set out to do in 2015, building on our series of budgets to grow the economy, so needed after the disastrous decade of the Harper years. The measures in Bill C-97, to be implemented by the budget implementation act, would do what Liberals do best: investing wisely and working with the private sector, the provinces and communities to strengthen the social and economic fabric of this country.

The prudent investments in this bill build on the fall economic statement, which I think could have been called a business budget. Part 1 of the budget implementation act relates to that fall economic statement.

The fall economic statement strengthened the very core of the business community's ability to compete by challenging head-on the U.S. tax reforms. It did many things, but I will name three: one, allowing businesses to immediately write off for tax purposes the full cost of machinery and equipment used in the manufacturing and processing of goods; two, implementing a new accelerated investment incentive, an accelerated capital cost allowance across all sectors of the economy; three, launching an export diversification strategy. That really assists our businesses in terms of being able to retain capital, attract investment, invest in new equipment, machinery and technology and be competitive in export markets. That just touches on three of the points in the fall economic statement.

From strengthening business opportunities in the fall economic statement, this bill seeks to give greater opportunity to Canadians and communities. In fact, I think this section of the bill could be called “the people's budget”. For my province, Prince Edward Island, over a four-year term in government, major federal transfers of equalization, the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer, have increased by $93.4 million to $647 million.

Of course, colleagues know from the smiles they see on people's faces in their communities and their ridings that the legacy program of the Canada child benefit has made a huge difference for families all across the country. Nine out of 10 families are better off. On Prince Edward Island, for families with children, the Canada child benefit has meant $100 million over the last year tax-free to those families. That is investing where the money needs to be invested. The money that goes into those families' pockets is spent in the local economy. It assists their children in child care and education, and it makes a much more progressive economy. Money is actually then spent in the community.

However, this Liberal government did not stop there. We know that early learning and child care are critical to give children the best start in life. Therefore, the Government of Canada and the Province of Prince Edward Island have signed an agreement that allows for the transfer of $10.6 million over three years for regulated early learning and child care, to give children their best start in life.

Let me turn to the other end of the age spectrum, to seniors, who have been so instrumental in building this country we are so fortunate to call home.

The budget provides additional funding, increasing the funding for the new horizons for seniors program by $20 million per year. It is an excellent program. It works in every riding. I encourage seniors groups and others to apply for that funding, because not only is it an expenditure spent in the local economy, but also it assists seniors with the programs they need. This program has a solid record of improving the quality of life of seniors and promoting their participation in communities and the workforce.

The budget implementation act goes further and proposes a series of measures to help Canadian seniors keep more money in their pockets by ensuring they receive the Canada pension plan benefits they are entitled to and stay active and be a valuable asset in their community. This builds on the concrete steps we have taken to improve the retirement security of Canadians.

I will turn to the budget. I know there are members on the other side who love to read this almost daily.

With respect to retirement security, page 62 lists measures that will really help seniors.

The government is enhancing the Canada Pension Plan, which will raise the maximum CPP retirement benefit by up to 50 per cent over time. It is restoring the eligibility age for OAS and GIS benefits to 65. It is increasing guaranteed income supplement top-up payments by up to $947 per year for single seniors, and introducing legislative changes so that couples who receive GIS and allowance benefits and have to live apart for reasons beyond their control can receive higher benefits based on their individual incomes.

Investing in the lives of seniors has been the focus of this government's emphasis, with the Prime Minister appointing a minister of seniors to ensure that programs and services are designed to respond to the needs of seniors.

I will quote from page 70 of the budget document itself, for those who wish to refer to the page.

These further investments amount to $40 billion for the 10-year national housing strategy, which will help ensure that vulnerable Canadians, including low-income seniors, have access to housing that meets their needs and that they can afford; $6 billion over 10 years for home care, to allow provinces and territories to improve access to home, community and palliative care services; $77 million in additional funding for the enabling accessibility fund, to improve the safety and accessibility of community spaces; making it easier to apply for employment insurance caregiving benefits, and introducing a new employment insurance caregiving benefit of up to 15 weeks to support individuals who are providing care to adult family members. That is important to do.

For communities directly, this budget tops up the federal gas tax refund by $2.2 billion. It doubles the amount for most communities, large and small, and is money they can invest in infrastructure, business and to make their communities more economically sustainable. In P.E.I., that amounts to $16.5 million in added investments for communities.

Basically, Bill C-97 touches all segments of the economy, as well as people and tax measures that allow our businesses to be more competitive. It challenges, head on, the tax reform in the United States.

This is a budget implementation act that is building on the foundation we have already put in place as a government and putting our country in a place where it can be prosperous and successful in the years to come.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque.

I am proud to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-97. This budget goes the next step in accomplishing the goals the Liberal government set out four years ago. It lifts Canadians up with an economy that supports them and a government that makes investments to make their lives easier. This is a change from the previous Harper Conservative government that cut important investments in infrastructure, health care and social programs.

In four years, our government has created over one million jobs, the unemployment rate is at the lowest point in years and Canada has the fastest-growing economy of all G7 nations. We have lifted 300,000 children out of poverty. Billions of dollars have been invested in affordable housing and infrastructure investments throughout Canada.

I want to thank the residents of Surrey—Newton for giving me the responsibility of delivering this real change in our community.

As members of Parliament, our purpose is to make a positive difference in the lives of our constituents. In all my terms as an MP, that is what I have sought to do. Whether it is making my personal cell number available to my constituents or going to as many community events as possible, I do this so my constituents can get the timely help they need and are able to share any issues or concerns they may have.

I am proud to share with everyone that since our first budget, our Liberal government has made important investments that have strengthened Surrey—Newton.

Since 2015, we have invested over $7 million to build more classroom space at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, as well as $125 million to build a new sustainable energy and environmental engineering building at SFU Surrey campus.

To help people get to where they need to be more efficiently, we are investing over $1 billion to expand the SkyTrain in Surrey. This comes after delivering 106 new buses and replacing the aging SkyTrain cars so they are more reliable for commuters.

Through a $600,000 investment in the Newton Recreation Centre and the Surrey Art Gallery, we have ensured that families have strong community centres for them to gather at.

Above all, the Canada child benefit is helping nearly 14,000 families, with an average monthly benefit of $630 a month. That is $8.7 million every month that is helping parents and children lead strong, healthy lives.

The Canada child benefit helps families with everything from groceries to child care to sports and recreation activities for our youth.

Because of this benefit, 300,000 children in Canada have been lifted out of poverty. That is something of which each and every member of the House should be proud. It is the single largest decline in poverty in the country's history. It happened because of the vision and leadership of the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Papineau. He promised real change and he has delivered.

When the finance minister delivered budget 2019, he spoke about the choices we have made in this budget to make life easier for Canadians.

To help young families buying their first home, we have created a new first-time homebuyer incentive, which will lower monthly mortgage payments by providing funding of 5% or 10% of the home purchase price for existing or new homes, respectively. This program is expected to help approximately 100,000 Canadians buy a home they can afford.

We have also increased the homebuyers' plan withdrawal limit for the first time in a decade. This would provide first-time homebuyers with more access to their RRSPs to buy a home.

Budget 2019 also lowers the interest rate for Canadian student loans to the prime rate, helping close to one million students who are repaying their student loans and saving the average student approximately $2,000 over the time of the loan. The interest payments during the first six-month grace period after graduation will also be waived, which will help approximately 200,000 students every year transition successfully from their studies to the workplace.

Canadians can now purchase the prescription drugs they need without having to worry about the costs. We are putting a plan in place to implement a national pharmacare plan that will help lower prescription costs. Through this plan, Canadians will save $3 billion each year.

To help more seniors retire with dignity, we are enhancing the GIS earning exemption from $3,500 to $5,000 while also automatically registering seniors aged 70 or older for their retirement benefits.

Finally, to ensure that our communities are stronger, we are investing an additional $2.2 billion to support local infrastructure priorities.

These are just some of the many highlights from budget 2019 that are going to directly help Canadians.

After 10 years of neglect by the Harper Conservatives, our government's investments are strengthening Canada. Opposition members have said that if they were back in government, they would not make these choices. What they would do is take us back and cut investments that are so vital to Canadians.

These investments, whether for seniors, child care, reducing income tax for small businesses or helping with infrastructure projects, are the real investments that change the lives of Canadians, particularly when it comes to Surrey—Newton. This is a very diverse community, socially and economically, and these policies for the middle class have helped over the last four years. I am certain that the 2019 budget will help even more so they will be able to do even better.

I am thankful for this opportunity to share my words.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to rise in this august chamber to talk about the things that are important to the good constituents of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. It is always a pleasure to speak on their behalf.

Before I begin my speech tonight, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, who will give a much more comprehensive speech on the finer details of the budget.

I will share a few thoughts and observations on the budget implementation act, Bill C-97.

Who said that omnibus bills were used to prevent debate in the House and limit the ability of MPs to examine what was in the budget by putting all kinds of different things in a single budget? I will spare colleagues the suspense. It was the Prime Minister.

It was also the Prime Minister who said, “I hope that future prime ministers will not make excessive use of omnibus bills and will not resort to prorogation to avoid problematic situations.” The same Prime Minister said, “the abuse of omnibus legislation under the previous government was egregious and something on which we committed to take action.” In fact, we know he promised not to use omnibus legislation in the last election, yet here we are.

I only mention this because it points to the usual pattern from the Prime Minister. He is happy to demonize others, to make promises that he will never do that which he says is wrong. Even if he promises not to, he breaks his promise. Of course, in his mind it is always okay when he does it, just not okay when someone else does it: do as I say, not as I do.

From my perspective, I am actually prepared to give some leeway to the use of omnibus legislation. Why? Because I have sat on the government's side of the House. When we are in government, our goal is to bring forward as many initiatives as we can and hope it will keep the economy strong.

As I used to say when I sat on that side of the House, I would much rather be criticized for attempting to do too much for the economy in a budget bill than not enough.

As an example, in one of the omnibus budget implementation acts of the last Conservative government, I was honoured that an amendment I used in my private member's bill to end the prohibition or ban on the shipping of wine was adopted by the previous Harper government and expanded to also include beer and spirits in the 2014 budget. I would even make light of the fact that it was one page in the former Conservative implementation act that received absolutely no complaints.

Indeed, in this current Liberal BIA, there is language that seeks to further amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act with the intent to remove federal barriers to directly ship to, in this case, the end-user, shipping of wine, beer and spirits. Of course, that is all subject to provincial regulations.

While the intention, I am sure, is fine, the deletion of any reference to domestic or interprovincial rules in the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act seems to me to be more of an abdication of any federal role. This is important. It is contrary not just to our Constitution and the framework that was set up in Confederation, but also it really says that the Liberal Party has lost any sense of imagination or creativity to apply leadership. In fact, it feels that abdicating the field is better than no leadership at all. I would take issue with that.

There is also language in the budget implementation act that also proposes to protect RDSPs. As some may know, I submitted a private member's bill proposing to protect registered disabled savings plans and registered education savings plans. I was pleased to see the government take my suggestion of protecting RDSPs, which are a crucial savings option for many Canadians, particularly for those with children who have challenges.

In last year's budget implementation act, the government also adopted another idea I submitted from one of my private member's bills to amend the Bank Act so that credit unions could continue to use consumer-friendly terms, such as “bank, banker and banking”.

I mention these things to demonstrate that I do believe there is some merit in tabling comprehensive budget implementation acts and, at the same time, to also point out there are measures in a BIA that I would support.

One other thing in this bill is about reducing the regulatory burden on credit unions. There is one measure in the bill that does exactly that. It was one of the four items proposed last December by the Canadian Credit Union Association. Therefore, I give big points for listening.

However, of the two items listed in this year's budget, introduced by this Minister of Finance, we see in this bill only one. Again, the Liberals get points for listening but zero points for delivery, other than that one.

This also leads to the challenge of budget implementation bills and why many critics oppose them. The downside of a budget implementation bill is that there are things one may strongly support, but there are also things that one may strongly oppose. As an example, this budget implementation act would not lead Canada back to any semblance of a balanced budget in 2019. This Prime Minister looked Canadians square in the eye and promised them that he would do precisely that. Again, what we have here is a broken promise.

If we are being candid, let us simply admit the obvious. He is not even trying to balance the budget. The finance minister will not even say the words “balanced budget”.

There is another challenge with omnibus legislation, and that is when a government tries to hide something in a budget implementation bill that has no business being there. In last year's budget implementation act, one example was the deferred prosecution agreement language. Not even Liberal MPs on the finance committee had any clue that the proposal was hidden in there or why. Several said it did not belong there. Now we know, sadly, why the Liberals hid it in there, or at least some of the reasons. I suspect that the full story will never be known.

In this year's budget implementation bill, there are proposed changes to Canada's refugee system that, frankly, do not belong in the bill. Those changes need to be debated independently.

Let me get back to the budget itself, and I will point out some other concerns that I will continue to raise.

This budget is silent on household debt. Let us recap why this is a problem. After the Liberals' first year in government, household debt, as a percentage of gross income in 2016, was 166%. In January of this year, that had increased to 176%. Let us pause to think about that for a moment. Canadian household debt is now 176% of gross household income. That has occurred in spite of the Liberal government spending over $60 billion since being elected, and still Canadians are falling further and further behind. This does not include government debt that is being added onto the backs of Canadians every single day.

Why do I raise household debt? Let us look at the Canada training benefit. On the surface, it sounds like a good thing. What can be wrong with encouraging skills, jobs and retraining? However, when we read the fine print, only $250 per year is available, up to a career maximum of $5,000. The challenge I am already hearing is that the majority of training programs cost well in excess of $5,000. Many skills training programs are literally thousands of dollars or more. For many workers, to benefit from this $250 training credit will mean borrowing thousands of dollars and increasing household debt.

Similarly, to access a credit of $5,000 toward the purchase of a new electric vehicle, for most people, would mean borrowing up to the maximum program amount of $45,000. This again would result in more household debt for anyone borrowing money for a new vehicle purchase.

A similar situation would be created with the new homebuyers' program. This budget offers many programs that sound great until we read the fine print and realize that people will end up borrowing, and becoming deeper in debt, to access them. How about the proposal to borrow up to $10,000 more from an RRSP, up to a maximum of $35,000? How many new homebuyers have they run across with a spare $35,000 kicking around in an RRSP? Still, homebuyers are only being allowed to borrow that money. They have to pay it back. Once again, more debt would be added.

Ultimately, a budget implementation act should try to do as much as it can for the economy. There are so many different things in here that it makes it difficult for us to say what is good and what is bad. There are so many aspects I have not been able to touch on. What should be number one on any government's mind is whether it is in the national interest to pursue this legislation. My vote will be no.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherbrooke for the work he does on the finance committee, a task I know very well. We spend quite a bit of time on it.

I would like to ask a more practical question about Bill C-97. In the bill, the government has offered a shared equity program through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We had a similar program in British Columbia, and there was not very much pickup on it.

I raise that for two reasons. The government has not given very much information, but what we do know is that it intends to make it operational by September 20. With our fixed election dates, it seems scandalous to offer a new program just before an election.

However, more important to the people who will be relying on it, one of the reasons why the shared equity program in British Columbia was not picked up was that mortgage brokers said they were not able to get answers as to who could apply and under what criteria one could get the proper approvals to be able to purchase a house. As we know, it can be very difficult for someone who is not able to make a proper offer to buy a home in a timely manner. If they do not know within days, chances are the deal will go to someone else.

Does the member feel that this is a proper program? Does he feel that the practical realities of implementing such a program on such a short time basis may end up not achieving its intended purposes?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Bill C-97 will enact Canada's first national poverty reduction strategy. I would like to know whether my colleague would agree that that strategy is not only important but vital to helping the most vulnerable Canadians in our society.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my caucus. I am sure that other members will have a chance to do the same, but I am deeply honoured to be taking part in the third reading debate on Bill C-97.

This bill has already been heavily scrutinized here in the House and at the Standing Committee on Finance, and its sheer size has provoked much debate. The bill is more than 400 pages long. It is yet another omnibus bill. Its content has also sparked debate. I would be remiss not to mention the content of the bill, as well as everything that the government left out. I am going to focus on the aspects of the bill that we consider most problematic, as well as the things that were completely left out of this last-chance budget.

It is 2019, and this is the government's last opportunity to deliver on its mandate and vision for the country. It is already June 2019. The latest budget was tabled in March, and this bill seeks to realize the vision outlined in budget 2019. This is the Liberal government's last bill, its last chance to turn its ideas and its vision for the nation into reality. It goes without saying that everything that was left out, everything that still has to be done and everything the Government of Canada is leaving unfinished will have to wait until later.

We will have to take the word of the Prime Minister, who, during the next election campaign, will try to convince Canadians that he will have time in the next four years to do what he did not have time to do in the past four years. We know full well that many promises have been broken over the past few years. Some were much bigger than others. Take electoral reform. Many Canadians remember quite clearly that this was a solemn promise. The Prime Minister repeated it almost daily during the election campaign. Nearly a year and a half later, he did not hesitate to break that promise, brushing it aside by saying that he changed his mind, that it was not a good idea after all, and that he would not be moving forward with electoral reform. This is a government that broke some of its signature promises, such as returning to a balanced budget. I know that my Conservative colleagues like to bring that up quite a bit.

Clearly, this government, which is nearing the end of its term, is suffering from a lack of credibility in terms of its campaign promises, and it will soon try to convince Canadians that it needs another term to complete what it did not have time to do in this last budget. Canadians are not stupid. They know what this Prime Minister's word is worth, because they have had four years to see him at work, to listen to him and to see what he had to offer Canadians. The people of Sherbrooke, Quebec and Canada will realize that his word is unfortunately not worth very much. This is the kind of thing that fuels cynicism among Canadians, and among my constituents back home in Sherbrooke. I often hear people say they are disappointed by politics and politicians. I am trying to get them interested in politics again, but when a government like this one, formed by the Liberal Party of Canada, breaks so many promises so shamelessly, it fuels cynicism about politics. That is why people will be so wary of any of the campaign promises made by the Prime Minister of Canada, and with good reason. We have to give them some credit. They will be right to doubt him, because the Prime Minister has broken so many of his promises during this last term.

This is a last-chance budget. Today we are debating the government's budgetary policy, its execution and its implementation. That is why, on our side of the House, we will ultimately have to vote against it. We will be forced to vote against Bill C-97 at third reading because it does not meet Canadians' needs. Clearly, on many issues, the government has not responded to the concrete problems Canadians are facing, and it is not about to do so over the next few months.

We will be voting against this budget, and we hope that many members will do so as well. We need to send the government a clear message. Its fiscal policy has not worked so far, and the rich are getting richer. We saw this recently. I will give just one example, that of KPMG. The accounting firm and its clients once again reached an out-of-court settlement after they were caught avoiding taxes using a scheme that was dubious and questionable, to say the least. It was certainly questioned by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The Canada Revenue Agency recently made a proposal to these clients. They were told to pay their taxes and the matter would be closed. They could move on once they paid their debt to society.

These people had a minimum of $300,000. For every file that KPMG opened, the client had to pay the firm at least $300,000 to put the scheme in place. In addition, the firm would take a cut of the tax savings that their clients realized with the Isle of Man scheme.

The scheme was revealed to the general public, so I will not repeat all the details. We know that the clients moved money abroad to a place with low taxes. They managed to avoid paying taxes by using all kinds of strategies, such as shell companies and fake directors. In its agreements with clients, this accounting firm demanded a cut of the tax savings. That is not something to be taken lightly. The firm promised tax savings and took a percentage off the top. This week, these clients signed a settlement with officials of the Canada Revenue Agency. With this settlement, they can put the matter behind them, close the books, pay the taxes, say goodbye and carry on as if nothing happened.

That is the message the Government of Canada decided to send all Canadians today. It conflicts with the standard messaging that the government and the Minister of National Revenue has been delivering up to now, about how the net is tightening, how tax cheats will pay, and how there never has been and never will be an amnesty. The Canada Revenue Agency and the minister even sent out photos showing people in handcuffs back when the KPMG scandal broke. She said that tax cheats would pay for their actions and that criminals would be put behind bars.

Today she is sending a different message. People who could afford to spend $300,000 on a scheme, plus a percentage of the money they saved on taxes, can afford to pay lawyers to get them off the hook with just a slap on the wrist.

Understandably, most Canadians, including most of the people of Sherbrooke, find that frustrating. They see rich people who can afford to pay the accounting firm and who have the means to defend themselves in court against charges relating to these borderline schemes getting off with a slap on the wrist, and my constituents find that frustrating in the extreme. I know my colleagues are frustrated too, but, unfortunately, the government decided to do nothing. Rather than do something, the government decided to follow in the Conservatives' footsteps and give preferential treatment to people who can afford to pay accounting firms, tax experts and lawyers to defend them against these charges and emerge virtually unscathed. Sure, they will pay the taxes they owe. It is the least they can do, but the government is signalling that they can keep doing this. The worst-case scenario is that they will end up in the Tax Court of Canada like the family from Vancouver and end up signing a settlement to close the books.

This sends the message that, under the current government, it is acceptable to engage in tax evasion and shady schemes. The government is turning a blind eye to all of that. That is the sort of behaviour that is perpetuated by the implementation of this budget and the government's budgetary fiscal policy.

We heard some powerful, compelling testimony in committee. The witnesses spoke to many parts of the bill, which is 400 pages long. This bill affects many laws and makes significant changes to many sectors of our economy. However, some provisions have nothing to do with the economy, but the government threw them all into the budget implementation bill anyway. It is therefore difficult for parliamentarians to speak to the bill as a whole.

We will soon have to vote on this 400-page bill. It will be a single vote, even though the bill makes many changes to many different laws. Earlier today, we voted on the amendments to this bill at report stage. We therefore had the opportunity to speak to many parts of the bill. At third reading, there will be just a single vote either for or against the bill as a whole. When the Liberal Party was on this side of the House, it spoke out against this practice. The Liberals criticized omnibus bills at every opportunity, because omnibus bills do not allow parliamentarians to vote on each measure or group of measures.

Since we have to cast a single vote on the bill as a whole, we need to consider the pros and cons of the bill. Today, it is clear that the cons outweigh the pros. Although we recognize that the bill contains some good measures, we have no choice but to vote against this budgetary policy.

The government has tried to make up for its blunders on several issues by presenting amendments in committee or at report stage. Earlier today, we debated the amendments that the government had proposed, with a royal recommendation, to change the bill. The government had to backpedal to fix things, particularly as regards the housing act.

The section on the housing act fell well short of what Canadians and housing experts had expected. The experts said that the right to housing is a fundamental human right, something the government refused to acknowledge in the first draft of the bill. It had to fix that, just like it had to fix other parts of the bill.

In committee, we tried to get the government to see reason on certain issues. We wanted it to provide a list pertaining to student loans as quickly as possible. In the bill, the government proposes starting to charge interest on student loans after six months. We tried to persuade it to just make student loans interest-free. It is not right to ask former students to pay interest on loans they took out to train for a career.

In committee we learned that this interest brought $700 million annually into the coffers of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. That money funds the government's priorities when it could stay in the pockets of young people who just completed their studies and are entering the workforce. Those young people have to save money to get into the real estate market and invest in our economy in various ways. The government is currently taking $700 million out of the pockets of young workers who are fresh out of school, and putting that money in the consolidated revenue fund.

The government is giving former students a six-month relief period when it could have gone further by permanently eliminating interest on student loans and stopping government funding by students. The government rejected this proposal.

As far as worker health and safety is concerned, representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress told us in committee that the flexibilities of the Hazardous Products Act benefited industry to the detriment of the health of the workers who are exposed to these products in the short or long term. They could have accidents with these hazardous products. The government is easing the rules to give the chemical products industry a free pass, which jeopardizes the health and safety of Canadian workers. In committee, the government once again sided with industry and the major lobbies in this country to ensure that their profits keep going up every year.

Furthermore, a large number of witnesses spoke out against the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Bill C-97 is, quite simply, anti-refugee. It creates two classes of refugees: those who enter Canada regularly and those who enter irregularly. The government is creating two parallel systems that it claims complement each other or are nearly identical.

The government could have simply turned to the Immigration and Refugee Board, which does a very good job and which needs more resources. Unfortunately, it decided to create two classes of refugees. One refugee even testified in committee that if the government's heartless bill had been in force, he might not be in Canada right now because he would have been sent back to his country, where he is in danger. Numerous experts called this a bad idea. That is why we are compelled to oppose the bill.

Now let's talk about pensions, which were not protected and which continue to be at the bottom of the order of creditor priority in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency. They could have had the courage to respond to the concerns heard at consultations. Most people said that the order of creditor priority had to be changed. The government decided to ignore all the experts' recommendations.

That was also the case for stock options. The economic update indicated that the government would address this situation, which is clearly problematic because it benefits the wealthy. It even says so in the budget document, but they decided to ignore the issue. In this budget, which is its last chance, the government decided to do nothing and wait until after the election to solve the problem, even though we know this government will be gone in October 2019.

The Liberals gave in to the pharmaceutical lobby on pharmacare. They gave them more time to rake in the biggest profits of the corporate world at the expense of taxpayers. They were given a free pass. The government is asking Canadians to trust it even though it broke many promises. It says that it will keep this one and that we must trust it, even if it has been saying so for 25 years.

As for oil companies, the Liberals continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of billions of dollars every year. This budget would have been a good opportunity to put an end to that.

Also, household debt continues to rise. Canadians are within $200 of insolvency each and every month, and the government is doing nothing to fix that.

Furthermore, the media bailout has been the talk of Parliament Hill and elsewhere. The media just want tax fairness. Of course, they also need some assistance to meet certain challenges, but above all, they need tax fairness. The government needs to put an end to the double standard that is giving web giants a free ride when it comes to taxes. They are exempted from paying income tax and sales tax, and are raking in billions of dollars in ad revenues, while our local and national media can barely make ends meet and take in sufficient ad revenues.

This is a bad budget bill. The government missed out on its last opportunity to show some courage and make the right choices.

I can assure the House that Canadians will not give the Liberals another term, since they merely spew empty rhetoric and make lofty promises, and have not honoured their commitments over the past four years. Canadians will turn to an alternate serious and credible solution, like the NDP, so we can finally fix the problems facing our society in 2019.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-97.

This bill will help implement major investments included in the 2019 budget. Most importantly, it will give the government new tools to help middle-class Canadians, reduce inequality and ensure that in Canada prosperity is truly inclusive.

I will stress that I am talking about new measures. Bill C-97 builds on our accomplishments and the progress we have made these last four years. We have to remember how we got here and how we achieved the results we see in Canada today. In 2015, the situation was very different. Economic growth was slow—even stagnant—unemployment was up and Canada was in a technical recession. Wages were not going up fast enough, but the cost of living, as we know, just keeps increasing.

Some families were having a tough time making ends meet, while saving for the future or for an emergency. In the fall of that same year, Canadians made a different choice. I think it was a very smart choice, in all impartiality. They chose a plan that would invest in the middle class, a plan that would make big investments in health, housing and the environment, while also staying fiscally responsible.

One of the first things Liberals did as a government was to ask the wealthiest 1% of Canadians to contribute a little more so that middle-class Canadians could have more money in their pockets. Today, over nine million Canadians are benefiting from the middle-class tax cut.

In 2016, we introduced the Canada child benefit. This measure has helped lift almost 300,000 children out of poverty. What is more, our government indexed the Canada child benefit payments two years ahead of schedule, so that benefits could keep pace with the rising cost of living. In July, benefits will increase with inflation to ensure that hard-working parents continue to have the support they need with the high cost of raising their kids.

With the CCB, nine out of 10 Canadian families with children are receiving more money than they received under the previous system of child benefits, where cheques were sent to families of millionaires, something that the Harper Conservatives and today's Conservatives fought to preserve while voting against the Canada child benefit.

For the 2019-20 year, on average, families benefiting from the CCB will receive around $7,000 to help with the high cost of raising kids, an amount that will continue to rise with the cost of living, as I have mentioned. According to the OECD, and I understand it is not the Fraser Institute, which the Conservatives like to quote, even though the studies they refer to often in the House have been debunked by just about anyone serious who has taken a look at it, precisely, because they fail to take into account the Canada child benefit.

However, according to the OECD, when the CCB is combined with the middle-class tax cut, a typical, middle-class family of four in Canada, on average, now has $2,000 more in their pockets than they did under the Harper Conservatives. This is significant progress.

We did not stop there. We replaced the old working income tax benefit with the more generous Canada workers benefit. The new benefit puts more money in the pockets of more than two million Canadian workers who are working hard to join the middle class.

In addition, to support Canada's hard-working entrepreneurs, we cut the small business tax rate twice, dropping it to 9% in January. It is now the lowest small business tax rate in the G7, and the fourth lowest of the 36 members of the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which I just referred to.

The results of the measures adopted by our government since fall 2015 speak for themselves. More than one million jobs were created in the Canadian economy. Last year, all job gains were in full-time positions. The unemployment rate is at its lowest in more than 40 years, and salaries are increasing faster than the rate of inflation. In sum, the country is heading in the right direction and the Canadian economy is booming.

Moreover, employment gains have greatly benefited groups that are often under-represented in the labour market, such as new immigrants, single mothers, indigenous peoples living on reserve and young Canadians who do not have a high school diploma. This represents considerable progress, but a lot of work remains to be done to continue reducing inequality in this country and to ensure that the growth and prosperity we are enjoying benefit as many people as possible.

Some Canadians remain concerned about the future. They are worried about their job security because the nature of work is evolving. They are worried that they will not be able to buy a home because housing is too expensive. They are worried about their retirement and they wonder whether they will have enough savings. These are legitimate concerns, and we will leave no one behind.

Bill C-97 is the next step in our plan to invest in the middle class and grow the economy today and for years to come. I will take a moment to elaborate on this before getting into some of the details of Bill C-97. Over the past three years, the government's action was based on three main pillars. That is the plan we presented to Canadians and it is working very well.

One of these three main pillars is investment in infrastructure. We know there are infrastructure needs across the country, from coast to coast, and we know how serious they are. Our environment also demands investments in public transportation infrastructure, for example. We committed to investing $180 billion over 12 years in infrastructure. These investments are paying off across the country and are helping many municipalities and provinces carry out meaningful infrastructure projects. Sometimes these projects appeal to the imagination, as is the case with public transportation. Others are a bit less glamorous, but just as important. Take waste water for example. We lose a lot of drinking water to aging waste water treatment systems.

The second pillar involves reducing inequalities through the measures I mentioned. These measures have helped reduce poverty by 20% in Canada. Child poverty was reduced by 40% in just three years. That is huge.

The third pillar is competitiveness. We are making sure that Canada has access to foreign markets, whether through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CETA, the renegotiated NAFTA, reduced small-business tax rates or strategic investments, all of which were sorely needed in Canada during the decade that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada were in power. They neglected the sciences and stopped investing in science. This undermines our country's competitiveness and prosperity over the long term.

Those are the three main pillars. In budget 2018, we reaffirmed the importance we place on science by making the largest investment in science in Canadian history, after a dark decade for scientists, science, research and innovation under Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

The budget and Bill C-97 are based on these three main pillars, which are working and have made Canada one of the G7's leading economies since we came to power three years ago.

Speaking of competitiveness, let us talk about skills.

That is something that I would like to talk about. In the first quarter of 2019, there were more Canadians employed than at any moment in Canada's history, including more women employed than at any moment in Canadian history. That is great news but we cannot take anything for granted. We know that not everyone has the right skills to take advantage of some of the new well-paying opportunities.

The nature of work is changing around the world and the challenge for workers, employers and governments is to find new ways to make sure that people have the skills they need to succeed in the changing work environment. For example, automation is on the rise. The OECD estimates that about one in 10 Canadian jobs are at high risk of automation within the next 10 to 20 years and that one out of three jobs is likely to experience significant changes.

Canada is not alone in this. Other countries will face the same challenge, as workers try to figure out how to get the training they need to keep their existing jobs or to prepare for new jobs.

We are determined to ensure that Canadian workers have the skills they need to succeed on the job market of tomorrow. To get there, Canadians must have access to appropriate training. That is why we introduced a new program, the Canada training benefit, in budget 2019. It is a personalized, portable benefit that will help Canadians get the time and money they need to learn new skills.

Bill C-97 will implement an important element of the benefit, namely an annual $250 credit for every worker to be put toward the cost of future training. This credit can add up to $5,000 over the course of a career. Eligible workers will receive their first credit this year, in 2019, and may start using it next year to register for a course they may need.

The Canada training benefit will open more doors for workers, which will help them contribute to the Canadian economy and benefit from its growth. This measure will be equally helpful for employers because it will give them access to a more skilled workforce, which will help them grow their businesses and create more well-paying jobs.

Clearly, if we want to prepare Canadians for the high-quality jobs of tomorrow, we must pay close attention to my generation and to young Canadians, something our government fully understands. When the Minister of Finance introduced budget 2019, he highlighted the steps we have taken to remove barriers to education and training.

With the measures in this budget implementation act, students would not have to start repaying their Canada student loans until six months after they graduated, and interest would not accumulate during that period on these loans. Paired with the budget's commitment to lower the interest rate on Canada student loans, the interest-free grace period is expected to save the average borrower approximately $2,000 over the lifetime of a loan.

We are taking these steps because young Canadians need our help. They are the most educated, connected and diverse generation this country has ever seen. They are changing our communities for the better and are taking the lead in building a fairer and more sustainable future.

At the same time, we are hearing from many young Canadians that they are still worried about what the future holds for them. Will they be able to afford college or university? Will there be good jobs ready for them when they graduate? Will they be able to afford a good place to live? We are taking action to answer more of these questions for young people and for all Canadians.

Let us take housing. Many young Canadians dream of owning their first home, a feeling shared by middle-class families. However, with rising house prices, it is getting increasingly harder for people to make that dream a reality. Our government believes that every Canadian should have a safe and affordable place to call home. That is why we are taking important steps to make housing more accessible and affordable, especially for first-time homebuyers.

The legislation we are debating proposes measures to help Canadians take their first step toward home ownership. It would amend the National Housing Act to allow the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to offer shared-equity mortgages to eligible first-time homebuyers. This important measure would be called the first-time homebuyer incentive. Through this new incentive, CMHC would provide 5% of the value of a home for a first-time homebuyer, helping to reduce the size of an insured mortgage and lowering monthly mortgage payments.

To encourage the construction of new housing, the incentive would increase to 10% for newly built homes. This could mean a lot for many young Canadians. For a middle-class family buying a new condo or new house worth $400,000, the savings could be about $225 a month. That could make a real difference. It is expected that this new incentive could help as many as 100,000 Canadian families buy their first home.

That is not all. The budget implementation bill also proposes to increase the limit on withdrawals from the home buyers' plan, or HBP. These amounts, which first-time home buyers can withdraw tax-free, can help fund the down payment. As announced in budget 2019, the limit is being increased from $25,000 to $35,000 per person, or from $50,000 to $70,000 for a couple. The maximum withdrawal amount had not been adjusted in 10 years, so we thought it was time to do so. Modernizing the home buyers' plan will help more people purchase their first home or first condo.

In addition, Bill C-97 will enact the new legislation for the national housing strategy. In concrete terms, it will require the federal government to give priority to the housing needs of the most vulnerable Canadians.

The government will also be required to report back to Parliament on the progress made in implementing the strategy and in achieving the desired results with respect to housing. These targets, such as cutting homelessness in half in this country and building 100,000 new units, as well as repairing and renovating another 300,000, will make a real difference in the lives of many Canadians.

I think these reinvestments in housing are all the more important in light of the federal withdrawal from housing investment, which, I should point out, began before the Conservative government took office and escalated during the 10 years that Stephen Harper was in power.

I think it is time for the federal government to take responsibility for housing and make a bold, ambitious comeback. That is what the national housing strategy does.

The bill also offers meaningful assistance for Canadian seniors, because all Canadians deserve a secure and dignified retirement, free of financial worries. Sadly, retirement can be a daunting prospect for some seniors, especially those living on low incomes.

Since 2015, the government has taken a number of steps to make retirement more affordable. For instance, it restored the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 65. The previous government had moved it up to 67, plunging hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Canadians into poverty.

We increased the GIS top-up for single seniors, a measure that benefited 900,000 Canadians.

Our government also reached an historic agreement with the provinces to enhance the CPP, which will raise the maximum retirement benefit by up to 50% over time. This will help more than one million families who would have faced a drop in their standard of living when they retired.

Budget 2019 and this BIA propose a series of new measures to help even more Canadians age with confidence in their finances. To help low-income working seniors, Bill C-97 proposes to increase the earnings exemption for the guaranteed income supplement and to expand the exemption to self-employment income. This means that more low-income working seniors would be able to keep more of their pay and their benefits.

We are also taking steps to ensure that everyone who is eligible receives her or his retirement benefit from the CPP. While the standard age to receive CPP benefits is 65, some people choose to delay receiving their retirement benefits until age 70, at which time they will receive a bit more each month. A small number of people, however, are currently missing out on receiving their CPP benefits. This happens because some apply too late, and some do not apply at all. To ensure that all Canadian workers receive the full value of the benefits they deserve, this BIA proposes to proactively enrol, as of 2020, CPP contributors who are age 70 or older who have not yet applied to receive their retirement benefits. It is estimated that approximately 40,000 Canadians would begin to receive a retirement pension as a result. They deserve that money. Making sure that they get it is the right thing to do, and this legislation would make it happen.

Budget 2019 and Bill C-97 are about investing in people, and I have given plenty of examples in this speech. However, it is also about investing in communities. That is why budget 2019 proposes to support local infrastructure priorities by providing a one-time top-up of $2.2 billion, doubling the federal municipal infrastructure commitment in 2018-19. This $2.2 billion injection of cash this year would help cities and towns of all sizes, as well as indigenous communities. It would provide them with much-needed funds to address short-term priorities and crucial repairs and help them finance other important projects, such as recreational arenas, soccer facilities, new roads, public transit extensions, improvements to drinking water infrastructure and so on. Transferring funds to communities will get projects built. Supporting this BIA will get projects built.

In recent years, this funding has supported approximately 4,000 projects each year that have contributed to productivity and economic growth, a cleaner environment and stronger communities. We promised this help, and we are delivering in this BIA.

I could go on about what is in this budget, because when it comes to investing in the middle class, there is a lot of good news to share. However, I will conclude with this. Canadians have made a lot of progress since the fall of 2015. They should be proud of the strong communities and the strong economy they have helped build.

I think it is a source of pride for Canadians, or it should be, that in three short years, we managed to turn around the situation that the Stephen Harper government ineptly and regrettably got us into. During that decade, we saw the lowest growth in employment since the Second World War, the lowest growth in exports and a disastrous economic record.

They also managed to add $150 billion to the national debt.

We managed to turn around the country's fortunes with the best economy in the G7, the lowest unemployment rate in nearly 40 years, and a 20% reduction in poverty in 2017. It never occurred to them to reduce poverty and inequality. It was the right thing to do for the country. To us it is obvious that the more inclusive our prosperity is and the more we reduce inequality, the better off the entire Canadian economy will be.

That is what we have managed to do and that is what we will continue to do.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

moved that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures be read the third time and passed.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

moved that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:22 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-97.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP sought to actually strike out every one of those provisions within Bill C-97 that undermine the refugee determination process. Witnesses at the committee were clear in saying that it was beyond fixing. That is what we did and the government failed to listen.

Back to Bill S-3, why has the Prime Minister, who claims that he is a feminist, not taken action to eliminate sex-based discrimination against indigenous people? It has been 18 months. All the government needs to do is to bring in an OIC to enact that, yet it has not done anything with respect to that. Where is the feminist Prime Minister who says that indigenous peoples and reconciliation is the number one priority? Where is the real action?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government appears set to ram through damaging changes to Canada's refugee determination system through the omnibus budget bill. Despite his self-proclaimed title of feminist, the Prime Minister has shown time and again that when push comes to shove, he will toss the ideals he claims to hold so dearly to the side for political gain.

Despite running on a promise to include gender-based analysis plus for all policies, we learned in February that fewer than half of government agencies and departments have a gender-based analysis plus plan. We certainly know that there was no gender-based analysis plus done on these changes hidden in the budget. If there had been, these provisions would not have been buried in Bill C-97. That is why 46 women's organizations from across Canada wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister to call out the fake feminism and identify the danger the changes will put already vulnerable women and girls fleeing gender-based violence in.

This is not the only time the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have, without hesitation, moved away from their self-professed titles and claims when politically convenient.

Bill S-3, an act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux v. Canada, received royal assent on December 12, 2017. Despite being in law nearly 18 months, the government has failed to bring into force all its provisions. This has allowed sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act to continue, and it is entirely unacceptable.

On May 15, the leader of the NDP and member for Burnaby South rose in the House to seek unanimous consent for a motion calling on the government to bring into force the remaining provisions in Bill S-3 to remedy this situation prior to June 21, 2019. It is absolutely astounding to me that it appeared that the government members in this place did not support that motion. Perhaps the politics of the day once again meant that those feminist ideals needed to be cast aside.

Yesterday Canada had a historic moment. The final report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls was made public and provided to the Prime Minister. This historic report lays out a path for transformative justice for indigenous women and girls to, as the title states, “Reclaim Power and Place”. Within the report are 231 calls for justice.

Call for justice 1.2 reads:

We call upon all governments, with the full participation of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, to immediately implement and fully comply with all relevant rights instruments, including but not limited to:...All the recommendations of the 2015 UN CEDAW Inquiry Report and cooperation with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on all follow-up procedures.

That UN report recommends quite clearly the following: “To amend the Indian Act to eliminate discrimination against women”.

Bill S-3 has received royal assent, and the UN has called on Canada to do this work. The NDP has pressed the government to do this work, and now the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report is calling on the government to do this work. Is it not time for the government to do what is right and eliminate sex-based discrimination against indigenous women once and for all?

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the comments my hon. colleague made was about the Canada child benefit. Bill C-97, which came through the finance committee, a committee I am privileged to serve on, included the poverty reduction strategy. For the first time in law, we will have set targets for a reduction in poverty.

We know that the best poverty reduction plan is to create jobs. Since we took office, Canadians have created over a million jobs, the majority of which are full-time. We have also implemented a number of other measures, such as the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit and the 10% increase in the GIS.

Could the member for Edmonton Centre tell us how important these measures are to his constituents?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment, as a first-term parliamentarian, to thank each of the hon. members who shared their remarks with us this evening, at the end of their distinguished parliamentary careers. There were many life lessons in those comments. There were many words of wisdom, a few funny stories and indeed things that I hope to be able to reflect on and learn from with multiple mandates in this chamber. However, as members know, that is up to our residents so I look forward to a vigorous campaign this summer and into the fall.

It is the great honour of my life to serve in this chamber and to represent the residents of Edmonton Centre. Therefore, tonight I would like to share my reflections on Bill C-97 and, more particularly, how this 2019 budget says very clearly that our government, budget 2019 and I are here for Edmonton.

I want to start with those people who paved the way for us. I want to start with the seniors and to acknowledge the tremendous sacrifice that seniors have made to build up our communities, to build up our country and, in my case, to build up the city of Edmonton. I honour and respect the wealth of knowledge that they carry with them and the experience and the skills that they continue to contribute and that we want to see them contributing today.

In budget 2019, we recognize the contribution that seniors have made to Canada and we are returning the favour by investing in them. Budget 2019 would help to support their active participation in society, including through work, and would smooth the transition to retirement for seniors when they choose to leave the workforce. I have seen the very good work that the horizons program for seniors has done to reduce social isolation.

I can see the work that we have done to make sure that seniors are able to retain more of the income they now spend. Seniors asked me at the doors why we were clawing back some of the money that they make when they go to work at the Walmart or their kids' school. They asked why we were taking some of that money and we listened. The Minister of Employment, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Seniors were very clear. Now seniors will not pay tax on the first $5,000, it is not going to be clawed back from their GIS and 50% of the next $10,000 will also be exempt. That is $7,500 on the $15,000 that seniors make that will now be in their pockets.

Unfortunately, some seniors are penalized. When they try to keep working, they see significant cuts to their benefits. That is why we listened to seniors and changed the program.

As I mentioned, that is why we are making changes to the GIS allowance benefit. It would begin in the July 2020 to July 2021 benefit year.

Our government respects seniors. Seniors are respected in the budget. We listened to them and we took action.

On innovation and jobs, our government and I are building, together with western Canadians, a strong and competitive west by focusing on business development, innovation and community development. We have pledged to do that by increasing support to Western Economic Diversification Canada with a $100-million increase over three years to increase its programming across western Canada. That means more jobs and more investment in companies. It means more companies will be able to scale up in Edmonton, in Red Deer, in Calgary and across the west.

We have also provided $100 million to the Clean Resource Innovation Network that will help make Alberta's oil and gas even greener and even cleaner.

As members know, when tragedy strikes every second counts, and that makes helicopters an indispensable tool for getting people the care they need quickly and efficiently, which is especially true across such a vast region as western Canada. Since 1985, STARS air ambulance, known as Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service, has provided rapid and specialized emergency helicopter ambulance service to patients who are critically ill or injured in communities across Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta.

STARS has contributed to saving hundreds of lives and it has helped all of us in some of the worst tragedies: helping after the Pine Lake tornado in July 1999; saving people during the floods of Calgary in 2013; providing transportation away from the fires that swept through Fort McMurray in 2016; and, when the nation's heart sank at the Humboldt crash, helping get those survivors to safety.

Our government recognizes the vital role that STARS plays in delivering access to emergency care for the communities it serves. Our budget will put five new emergency medical helicopters in the air, with a $65-million allocation in budget 2019, making sure that STARS can renew half of its aging fleet and continue its life-saving work.

One of the key aspects of this budget, and even this government, is the hard work we do on behalf of all Canadians, including LGBTQ2 Canadians.

All Canadians deserve our respect, and that includes LGBTQ2 Canadians. That is why I am so delighted to state that in budget 2019 we have included, for the first time in the history of this country, an allocation of $20 million over two years for capacity-building and community-level work for LGBTQ2 service organizations in Canada. This means that community-based organizations that have been shut out and not able to apply to the federal government for anything, ever, will now have that opportunity, starting later this summer and into the new year.

I want to pause and thank the Minister of Finance and member of Parliament for Toronto Centre and his team for this historic investment in budget 2019. It did not have to be there, but it is there. I want to thank the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and MP for Peterborough—Kawartha and her team, because that is the department that will flow the money. I want to thank the LGBTQ2 Secretariat that resides in the Privy Council Office. Without its steadfast work, without its coordination, this would not be possible. I want to thank my own team. To each of them, I want to say that they have made history and they will change and save lives.

Why is the pan-Canadian suicide prevention service, money that we put aside for the national suicide prevention line, so important? It is $25 million over five years.

Earlier today, I was at something called Children First. It was a luncheon and colleagues from the other side of the aisle were also there. We each got paired up with a young person, and I was paired up with 11-year-old Ethan from PETES, an elementary school. We started chatting, in front of a hundred of his colleagues. I asked him what he likes to do. He said he was a video games guy; he likes to play, draw and dance. Then I asked him, “When you talk with your friends, what are some of the big things you want adults to fix?” He looked me straight in the eye and said, “Can you stop bullying? Can you stop people from hurting other people?” I asked if he knew someone who was bullied, and he said he was. It scared him. It ruined his life, and he was quiet for way too long. He became really depressed and had suicidal thoughts. This is an 11-year-old kid who was opening up to me in front of a hundred people at a luncheon today. He asked if we can do something to keep more kids safe.

He wanted to make sure that people would listen. He was not sure that if he told an adult, somebody would listen. The people we will employ on this pan-Canadian suicide prevention hotline will listen to people like Ethan, and that is why budget 2019 is going to make a difference in the lives of so many Canadians.

Turning to another pressing issue in Edmonton Centre, it is important that we do better for, with and by indigenous people, particularly urban indigenous communities. About 60% of indigenous people in Canada live in an urban setting, and Edmonton is home to Canada's second-largest indigenous population. That makes indigenous supports in urban settings a priority for me and for our government. We are investing in safe and culturally relevant community spaces, with $60 million over five years to support capital infrastructure in friendship centres.

With budget 2019, our government is on track to end boil water advisories in Canada by 2021. That affects first nations people whether they are in urban settings or across the country. I attended the Kehewin First Nation sod turning in February. By January 2020, that will be the last boil water advisory for any first nation in Alberta.

With the minute I have left, I want to talk about why an urban riding like mine needs infrastructure. We have the youngest city in the country, with an average age of 34, which is putting me on the other side of the young age now. When a city is that young and dynamic, we need infrastructure, like transit. We have invested almost $1 billion in the transit system that would go through my riding all the way to West Edmonton Mall and to Lewis Estates, so that parents can get home to their kids faster, so that young professionals can get to their activities after work, so that our dynamic economy can continue to grow.

In an urban riding like mine, we need to see commerce increase, and we need people to be able to get home to their families. Our government has listened. Our historic investments in infrastructure will continue, with $16 billion a year over the next nine years. That is improving lives. It is making things better. That is why, with budget 2019, our government and I are here for Edmonton.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.

I am profoundly concerned.

The federal budget is a government's opportunity to present its plan for the country and its economy. It is its opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians that true political leadership is the art of the possible.

It is concerning that rather than accomplish the possible things that could help Canadians prosper, the Liberal party refuses to recognize that more and more Canadians are just getting by and not getting ahead.

Canadians need budget measures that at least acknowledge their struggles and help provide them some relief from the escalating costs of day-to-day life, not ones that simply continue the Liberals' long history of tax-and-spend policies that instead hurt families, businesses and the sustainability of government programs on which people rely.

Again, in this budget, there is no plan. Instead, Canadians are getting tax increases that only make their situation worse.

There is no question that over the past four years Canadians have suffered under a Liberal government that misses opportunities, mortgages our children's futures, lacks a plan and neglects the needs of workers and families.

Let us talk about the concerns of the constituents I represent in Flamborough—Glanbrook and what they have been feeling as far as Liberal neglect is concerned.

In the greater city of Hamilton, thousands of Stelco workers and pensioners have been forced to deal with great uncertainty and have really struggled after the company moved into creditor protection on two different occasions, 2004 and 2014. These are Canadians who have or are at risk of losing their dream of a dignified retirement after decades of hard work.

What I have heard from every pensioner who has reached out to me on this issue is that he or she has serious concerns that the bankruptcy process puts investors ahead of pensioners.

Bankruptcies at Sears and Nortel over the years have resulted in similar dire circumstances for their pensioners. Thousands of Sears employees were out of work when the store closed in December 2017, yet there was no real pension protection for employees who had been there for 10, 20, 30 years or more.

A pension is deferred wages. That it is even possible to lose deferred wages is totally unacceptable.

The Liberals promised action years ago. More empty promises in this budget do not a plan make.

Our previous Conservative government took an important first step when we brought in changes that required companies to fulfill their pension obligations when they sought creditor protection. I am happy that change was made because it was a crucial first step toward protecting pensioners. However, there are many more steps to take. That was just the first and more needs to be done.

It is possible to make changes to our laws and regulations to improve protections for pensioners. The question becomes, what changes should be made and how do we make those changes? This is not a question to which one party has all the answers.

It is not my intention to over simplify the challenge before us. I remind my colleagues that political leadership is the art of the possible. Millions of Canadians rely on their pensions. This issue is too important to avoid action because the problem is too complex. Nor should members be divided down partisan lines. We have to make this change possible.

That is why, in 2017, I called upon the government to charge one of our parliamentary committees to review the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditor Arrangement Act and the Investment Canada Act. That was 18 months ago.

I strongly believe a parliamentary committee is the ideal place to begin. A parliamentary study allows members of all parties to examine important statutes and regulations and provide their input on the matter. In hearing from stakeholders, public servants, legal and industry experts, a committee study allows members to determine where exactly the issues are and what exactly is possible. All of the testimony would be a matter of public record, meaning that those arguing for and against changes would be subject to scrutiny, and rightfully so.

Committee members then have the opportunity to make recommendations to the government as to what problems need to be addressed and how they could be addressed.

Having previously chaired the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and understanding the issues that come before it, that would make a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, when my Conservative colleagues brought forward a motion to begin such a study at committee, the Liberals voted it down. Instead of taking advantage of the power of a parliamentary committee, the Liberals blocked that study and made it clear that looking at new ways to protect pensioners was not a priority for the government. In the 18 months since, we have essentially heard nothing from the Liberals regarding pension protections. A lot could have been done by now if the Liberals had the will.

Ironically, in the latest budget, the Liberals committed to giving pensioners greater peace of mind by “enhancing retirement security”. Is this vague commitment what pensioners have been waiting for all these years? The Liberals are not prepared to take the very possible and meaningful steps to follow through on those words. While moves toward greater transparency in the process are all well and good, the budget falls far short of actually providing concrete protections for pensioners when their company files for creditor protection.

It is not just the official opposition that sees this legislation as woefully lacking. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons and the Canadian Federation of Pensioners agree that Bill C-97 falls well short.

When I met with the United Steelworkers a few weeks ago, they made it abundantly clear to me that this was their number one priority, because there are still workers and pensioners who are struggling, stressed out and concerned for their futures.

This issue should transcend partisan boundaries. My Conservative colleague, the hon. member for Durham, when he introduced Bill C-405 to begin making changes to better protect pensioners, said that “securing the retirement and pension security of Canadians is another time that we should work together on all sides of this House to bring certainty to hundreds of thousands of Canadians in their retirement.”

The hon. NDP member for Hamilton Mountain, who has offered his own private member's bill on pensions as well, referred to the issue as a “legislative crisis”.

Even the Liberal Minister of Seniors, who is also the member for a neighbour riding of mine, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, told the CBC that more study was needed on pensions. That begs the question: If the position of the Liberal government is that more study is needed, why did the Liberals vote down a Conservative motion to study pension protections at committee? I think Canadians deserve an answer to that question, and the government better have a reason that is better that petty partisanship. The financial security and safety of our retirees is far too important for that.

I reiterate my belief that a complete review of the legislation governing pensions and insolvency is needed, one that considers the perspectives of all stakeholders: workers, business leaders, industry experts, civil servants, bondholders, banks, and suppliers who, by the way, get victimized very regularly as well when a company goes out of business. Small suppliers who have a handful of employees are forced into bankruptcy and their employees lose their jobs because they are so far down the list as well. They should be part of the stakeholders who come before our committee, and so many others, who can give their testimony in regard to how bankruptcy should be handled and the priority in which the claims should be made. This is not and never will be an issue that only one party can solve on its own.

The Liberals did not want dialogue, and it is reflected in this bill because their proposals are not only inadequate but fail to even broach the crux of the issue. This is not an issue that can be meaningfully addressed in a massive omnibus budget bill. I implore the Liberal executive to allow committees to do what they do best. The issue requires an approach that allows members of all parties to take the time to have an in-depth debate on this specific issue without the looming threat of time allocation to get the budget through.

Pensioners work hard for decades to earn a dignified retirement. I am certain that my colleagues right here in the House, who are vested with a pension, would scream quite loudly if all of a sudden it was limited or taken away. The least we can do as elected representatives of Canadian workers and pensioners is to take the issue seriously and provide meaningful changes to protect them.

While we may not be able to make all stakeholders completely happy, it is possible to do much more and better for workers. Let us get this on the front burner now before another 18 months go by.

The House resumed consideration of C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-97, an honour but also a concern.

It is also an honour and a privilege to bring the concerns of my constituents of North Okanagan—Shuswap to this House and debate them as their member of Parliament. Perhaps the greatest honour I have ever known, aside from being blessed with a loving wife and becoming a parent, is to represent the people who have entrusted me to carry their issues and best interests forward, on their behalf and for the good of Canada.

We all come to this place with the intention of representing our ridings and the great people in them, and some of us are very successful at it. What I have seen over the last three and a half years is a government and a Prime Minister who have strayed away from representing the people. The Liberals have put in place a bureaucracy and a larger government with priorities far ahead of what the average Canadian's needs are. The most glaring example of that is the government's out-of-control spending, the lavish sense of entitlement of the Prime Minister and the ballooning budgets that we see year after year after year.

Bill C-97 is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019. It is 396 pages, which is not a massive omnibus bill, but it is massive in its own right. This budget adds almost another $20 billion in deficit. This has been happening for multiple years now, with the government and its out-of-control spending.

Most people have difficulty envisioning what $20 billion would look like; a big $20-billion pile is very hard to envision. Most average Canadians cannot quite put that picture together. When I am talking to the good people in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap, I explain to them that the $20-billion increase to debt that the government seems to be putting forward every year works out to about $540 for every man, woman, child, veteran, senior and grandparent. It is another $540 per year, year after year after year, that the government is taking out of their pockets.

Then I ask people if they can envision what those dollars would look like in their hands and what they could do with that money in their pockets. That is when they start to get really angry, as they realize they could do far better with the dollars in their pockets rather than sending them to an out-of-control government with out-of-control spending habits. Then I also explain to them, especially those in the workforce, that they are actually on the hook for double that amount. It is over $1,000 for every working person, because only 50% of Canadians are employed full time and might be able to pay back some of this debt the government is piling on. That is when they get really upset and ask what we can do, and ask that we do everything we can to eliminate the out-of-control government and its out-of-control spending.

Average Canadians must base their lives on what they can earn, borrow and pay back within their working years. Average Canadians understand these principles. They strive to pay off their debts and provide a starter investment for their children or leave a bit of inheritance for their children or grandchildren, whatever that may be.

In contrast, we currently have a Liberal government that thinks nothing of spending beyond not just its means but the taxpayers' means. What it really comes down to is a government that is spending beyond the taxpayers' means right now and adding debt year after year after year.

This is a government that does not believe in setting aside anything for a rainy day. Instead of leaving something in the bank for future generations, it is passing on a massive debt load that current and future taxpayers will have to pay back.

On top of this increasing debt load the government is passing on, it has spent hundreds of millions of dollars offshore. Upon joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the government committed Canada to a roughly 1% share of the bank, worth about $256 million. This will all be spent over the next five years.

When I explain this to the good people back home in North Okanagan—Shuswap, they start to envision what that kind of money could have done back home. When I talk to people there, they think of the projects we talked about in the pre-budget consultations I do every year. I go around to every community, every first nation and the chambers of commerce to meet with their boards and ask what they would like to see in the budget. I compile all that information in a condensed, concise version and provide it in a letter to the finance minister well in advance of the annual budget each year. Unfortunately, what we see in return is not reflective of what average Canadians need.

The dollars being spent offshore in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank are going to build pipelines in China. They are going to build major projects overseas, but no Canadian operations will be involved in those projects. All that funding will simply go offshore rather than being used to put Canadians to work.

That really upsets the people back home when I tell them. They have requested funding and support for youth space in their small communities, such as in the village of Chase, so that their youth can have a place to be active rather than out on the street. The Sicamous community has put forward the idea of a joint project involving the community and the local first nation band, the Splatsin. They can see what these projects can do for the community and they can see the revenue generation it could create. However, those funds are not there, partly because the government has decided to send them offshore.

I have seen requests from communities asking for help in purchasing emergency equipment or in upgrading their fire halls. Again, that funding is not available, because it has been sent offshore or has been spent to service the increasing debt, as we have heard in some of the speeches this afternoon. These are debt service costs from the increasing deficit the government continues to pile on.

I have also heard communities ask for a bit of a kick-start in developing economic plans. First nations bands and small communities have asked me about this. They want to know how they could possibly get some assistance and guidance in putting an economic plan together. Again, the money is not available, because it was spent elsewhere.

We have heard much talk about the mortgage stress test. I hear a lot back home about the shortage of affordable housing. I use the term “housing that is affordable”. The term “affordable housing” rings to most people as low-income, income-assisted or payment-assisted housing. However, it is housing that is affordable at all levels that we need. I believe that it is not just in my community but right across the country. For every chance we have to move someone into a first home or into a retirement home or into a rental home, an opportunity is opened up for someone else.

Those are the kinds of things I see average Canadians in my riding asking for.

They are asking for things like highway improvements. They are asking for things like electrification for the small community of Seymour Arm, which is currently off the grid and using diesel generation to power the community. These kinds of things would really help small communities move forward and get together, but the funds are not available, because the current government is deciding to use them on lavish vacations or offshore spending or for servicing the debt.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.

The bill would help bring the proposal outlined in budget 2019 to life and help improve the lives of Canadians, including my constituents in Brampton West.

For the past four years, I have had the opportunity to speak to many pieces of legislation in the House and provide my voice on how our government's policies would improve the lives of my constituents in Brampton West. Budget 2019 is the accumulation of four years of making Canada a better place to live for all Canadians.

Let me talk about the current economic situation.

First and foremost, for the last three and a half years, Canada's economy has been booming. We have been investing in our middle class. One of the first things we did was cut taxes for the middle class. We introduced initiatives like the Canada child benefit. We are putting more money in the hands of those who need it the most. With that, we have created an environment of growth.

Since November 2015, under the leadership of our Prime Minister and the finance minister, Canadians have created over one million jobs. One million more families are better off than they were before. If we compare our record, that is one million more jobs created in the last three and a half years than the Harper Conservatives could do in 10 years. The majority of these jobs are full time. The unemployment level is the lowest it has been in decades. We have lifted more than 300,000 children out of poverty. A typical Canadian family is $2,000 better off under our plan than it was under the Stephen Harper plan back in 2015. That is real change, and we know our plan is working.

While it is important to celebrate the milestones that we have achieved, it is also important to acknowledge that a lot of work needs to be done.

Today in Canada, especially where my constituents live in Brampton West, once affordable properties are now out of reach due to high demand. Therefore, in budget 2016 and in budget 2017, we established Canada's first-ever housing strategy that would invest $40 billion over 10 years to build and repair affordable housing units. This gives future homeowners greater options when looking at the housing market and makes housing accessible to more people than ever before.

In budget 2019, we are taking another step to support first-time homebuyers, including new immigrant families in Brampton West. To help make home ownership more affordable for first-time homebuyers, budget 2019 introduces the first-time homebuyer incentive. This incentive would allow eligible first-time homebuyers, who have the minimum down payment of an insured mortgage, to finance a portion of their home purchase through a shared equity mortgage with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Budget 2019 also proposes to increase the homebuyers plan withdrawal limit from $25,000 to $35,000, providing first-time homebuyers greater access to their registered retirement savings plan to buy a home. I know this initiative will benefit many young families in Brampton West looking to purchase a home or a condo. It gives them the option to put more money down by accessing a larger portion of their savings and helps them deal with the cost of living by lowering their monthly mortgage payments.

I would like to talk a bit about our health care.

Our health system is one of which Canadians are extremely proud. We all recognize that it is one of the best systems in the world. From my background as a registered nurse, I have seen the impact it has not just in our communities, but in hospitals. We also recognize that the cost of prescription medication is a significant barrier to many Canadians to get the treatment they need. No Canadian should have to choose between paying for a prescription and putting food on the table or going without needed medication simply because he or she cannot afford it.

To address these challenges, budget 2019 announces steps to move forward with a national pharmacare program. This is very important to my constituents in Brampton West. We have been advocating for this with the government and in my previous role as parliamentary secretary to the minister of health.

We are establishing the Canadian drug agency. This new national drug agency would build on existing provincial and territorial successes and take a coordinated approach to assessing effectiveness and negotiating prescription drug prices on behalf of Canadians. Negotiating better prices could help lower the cost of prescription drugs for Canadians up to $3 billion per year in the long term. The extra savings would mean more money going to my constituents and more investments in Canadians.

We are also creating a national formulary, a comprehensive, evidence-based list of prescribed drugs, to be developed as part of the Canadian drug agency. This would provide the basis for a consistent approach to formulary listing and patient access across the country. It would set out a clear path toward a national pharmacare program.

In addition to these essential steps, we are introducing a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases, to help Canadians get better access to the effective treatments they need.

These changes will put the foundation in place as we wait to hear from the advisory council later this year on the implementation of national pharmacare.

This budget provides more money directly to the communities and municipalities that need it. Through a doubling of the gas tax fund infrastructure top-up, our government will be transferring more money directly to municipalities so they can fund projects that are important to their communities.

It is unfortunate that the provincial government in Ontario is impeding the flow of federal dollars to our municipalities. This has been having a tremendous effect in my community in Brampton.

We are working directly with our municipalities to ensure that essential projects move forward. I am proud to be part of a government that is working with municipalities on behalf of Canadians and delivering for them.

Brampton will be receiving close to $50 million through this fund so that it can invest in services that Bramptonians rely on most, such as public transportation, recreation centres and our parks.

We have seen what is happening in Ontario. While the provincial Conservative government is failing and continuing to make cuts on the backs of Canadians, our government continues to deliver for Canadians.

Our government is also thinking forward by investing in the new frontier for our safety. That frontier is cybersecurity. Digital technologies are increasingly knitted into the lives of Canadians, so in order to protect our information, we need a plan. Canada's skilled workforce and world-class universities can help us become leaders in cybersecurity research and development.

To promote collaboration among Canadian cybersecurity centres of expertise, budget 2019 proposes to provide $80 million over four years to support Canadian cybersecurity networks across Canada that are affiliated with post-secondary institutions. The funding proposed in budget 2019 would mean that institutions like the Ryerson University cybersecurity centre in Brampton will get the funding they need to create well-paying jobs and solidify our cybersecurity infrastructure.

This cybersecurity centre was part of a project by Ryerson University to establish a full satellite campus in Brampton, something the Brampton community and all members from Brampton advocated for years. The campus would have provided a post-secondary education experience for young Bramptonians closer to home. It would have created jobs and attracted new talent to Brampton. The project was unfortunately, once again, gutted by the current provincial Conservative government.

Where it made cuts to our health care, education and communities, we will continue to invest in and for Bramptonians and make those investments.

Canadians are among the most skilled and highly educated workers in the world. However, today the evolving nature of work means that people may change jobs many times over the course of their working lives or may require new skills to keep their jobs in a changing economy.

That is why we are providing Canadians with a tool called the Canada training benefit. This program would help provide more choices for my constituents so they can find the jobs they need to be successful in fulfilling their careers, while also not endangering their current employment.

The changes we have brought forward over the last four years and the changes included in this budget make me extremely proud of our government, which recognizes the importance of investing in the middle class. I hope to be part of this truly progressive government over the years so we can continue to bring real change and keep bringing investments into Brampton so our constituents can continue to thrive, not just in Brampton but in communities all across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has pointed out that the Liberals are now trying to hold the NDP to its electoral promises, when they break so many of their own. It is quite funny.

Bill C-97, the omnibus legislation, includes a few things on which both of our ridings would agree, although we probably would want to have some discussions on them.

The first is that the Canadian Credit Union Association was promised two red tape reduction measures in the budget. There is only one in it. What does the member think about that?

Second, instead of actively campaigning to work with provincial premiers to open up the wines of his region and my region, the federal government is abdicating completely. It has eliminated any reference in the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act in the omnibus bill. Then they are trying to sell it like they are somehow opening up opportunities. Really what they are doing is abdicating the field. What does the member think about that part and what do these things mean for his riding?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be standing in this place to give my thoughts on the bill that is before us. It is unfortunate that with yet another omnibus bill, one that clocks in at almost 400 pages, we are unfortunately having to debate this bill under the yoke of time allocation, which was moved earlier this morning. I believe this gives us five hours for report stage and five hours for third reading for a bill of this magnitude.

This is the fourth Liberal budget I have had to sit through. I was one of those members who were elected in 2015 and have served the entire duration thus far. I have noticed two things with respect to the Liberals and their budgets. They like to always repeat two things. Number one is that they were the ones who brought in a middle-class tax cut, and number two is that they are lifting all of these children out of poverty with the child benefit. Let me address the first one before the government House leader cheers too loudly on that front.

I want to point out two facts. Number one is that in 2017, according to Statistics Canada, the average income in Canada was $46,700, and the median income was $35,000. Now the Liberals are claiming this as a middle-class tax cut, when in fact it is actually the middle-income tax bracket cut, which they lowered by 1.5%. This is very important, because they keep on perpetuating this basic thing. The middle-income tax bracket starts at $46,000 and goes up to $93,000. This means that this benefit is not going to help the average Canadian. I can also clearly speak for most of my constituents. They do not have incomes that go into that range, or if they do, they are getting maybe the first amount.

What the Liberals did, however, by giving that tax cut for that bracket was give themselves all the maximum tax cut of about $675,000, because a member of Parliament's salary allows the member to command the full benefits of that tax cut, when most Canadians, as evidenced by Statistics Canada, are not in fact benefiting from that tax cut. I have spent almost four years in this place listening to Liberals talk about that, and the evidence does not back them up. It is not the middle class. It is a middle-income tax cut of 1.5%, and the wealthiest of Canadians under $200,000 of income are the ones who benefited the most. Let us get that out of the way.

The other thing is with the child benefit. I will give it to the Liberals that for a lot of families it was absolutely great to see an increase to child benefits. There is a big “however” to that. When I go door knocking in my riding, especially in the south end, in Langford, which is populated by a lot of young families, the biggest concern they have is with the availability and affordability of child care. There are simply not enough spaces. Yes, it is nice to get that bump up in child benefits, but if the primary caregiver, whether it be one partner or the other, wants to go out and get a second job, it is actually the lack of availability of spaces that is really holding that parent back.

Furthermore, I talk to small businesses in the region that have three, four or five employees. When they lose one employee because that person is going on maternity leave, they are losing a huge part of their workforce. If small businesses could have that national child care system the NDP has been advocating, that would help them, because that employee could make a return to work in a timely manner, safe in the knowledge that his or her child has a space to go to. It makes economic sense, which is why we have had chambers of commerce talk about it.

As to this particular bill, I want to talk about some of the things that are missing. In British Columbia we have an opioid crisis, which has absolutely ravaged our province. I believe we lost 4,000 people across the country in 2017. It has been absolutely devastating, yet in this budget we do not see any further resources to help those front-line workers who are dealing with this. We do not see any move by the federal government to match the government of B.C. in declaring this a national emergency under the federal Emergencies Act, which would allow the federal government to deploy more resources.

Pharmacare was a missed opportunity. I brought this up during the Adjournment Proceedings debate last night, when I was following up on a question I had asked in February. It needs to be said again.

The Liberal Party first promised a national pharmacare system in 1997, 22 years ago. The Liberals have had the benefit of having had majority governments in 1993, 1997, 2000 and again in this mandate, the 2015 mandate. Here we are, at the very tail end of the Liberal government's majority mandate, and what do we have? We have an expert panel that will release more recommendations, which are probably going to be a repeat of what we all know, that a national pharmacare system would save Canadians money. We know it has to be comprehensive, universal and fully public. It is the missing part of our national medicare system.

The Liberal government likes to make a great big deal about its national housing strategy, but when we look at the numbers, the lion's share of the money actually starts flowing after the next federal election. I appreciate that the Liberals keep on getting up and talking about all the things that are coming. I have dug into the numbers in my riding. A lot of the funding announcements are actually federal funding that was already in place before the national housing strategy.

If the Liberals want to raise the issue, I have the phone number for Mayor Stew Young of the City of Langford, one of the fastest growing municipalities in all of British Columbia, if not Canada. He could tell them where the federal government has been. MIA is what he will say.

I have a lot of students in my area. My riding is home to Royal Roads University. We have Vancouver Island University, the Cowichan campus. Of course not too far away, we have the great University of Victoria, which is where I attended school.

The price of tuition has gone up considerably since I went to university. I remember I thought it was fairly high back in my day. However, these days I look at the costs that students are paying, the debt they are being saddled with and the fact that the federal government is still collecting interest off that debt.

When a person gets into their late 20s and early 30, those are supposed to be the most productive years of their lives. We are asking them to start a family, start that new job. However, if they are saddled with that crushing debt and having to pay interest on it, interest which the federal government is collecting, that is a missed opportunity. I do not know why we are profiting off this crushing student debt. That opportunity was missed. I certainly hope that the students who are intending to vote take note of that and take note of where the different political parties stand on that issue.

I will end with the total missed opportunity that comes with the federal government's continued subsidies on oil and gas. This was a clear Liberal promise on which they have failed to deliver. We can look at the billions of dollars go into an industry, which we know we have to start levelling off if we are to meet our climate targets. We have a carbon budget. We are not meeting it.

For people who complain about the cost of doing so or the cost of transition, I would ask them to look at the forecast for the wildfire budget in British Columbia for this year. What will the costs be of mitigating and adapting to climate change? What about the billions of dollars we will to have to spend to help people when their homes are flooded out, when their farms are burned or when they cannot even produce a crop because of successive droughts and/or floods.

These costs are coming our way and they are going to be momentous. They are going dwarf to anything. The fact is that the government is continuing to subsidize this industry when the new economy of the future, the renewable energy economy of the future is the one that is growing. It is the one where the jobs are and it is the one demanding the skill sets of many of our oil and gas workers.

We need to stop subsidizing oil and gas. We need to put our money in the economy of the future. This is a missed opportunity to proclaim loudly that in 2019 we understand the science, that we know the deadline we were working against and that we absolutely must honour not only the present but our children's future by making that transition. It will require a Herculean effort. Unfortunately, what I have seen thus far is not matching the reality in which we live.

With that, I will be voting against Bill C-97. Again, it is full of missed opportunities. We could have done so much better.

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

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague talked about something other than Bill C-97, I will do the same and talk about something that he must have forgotten in his speech, and that is the problems with the Phoenix pay system, which affect so many people in his riding.

This topic is fresh on the minds of public servants in Sherbrooke, and that must be the case in his riding as well. The unions are still very angry with the government for making nice promises that it did not keep. The problems with the Phoenix pay system persist and are getting worse over time. My colleague is well aware of that, since he is in charge of this government file. He did not keep his promises.

Two budgets ago, the Liberals announced the end of the Phoenix pay system. Today, as we speak, in June 2019, Phoenix is still the pay system being used by the federal public service.

In 2015, he made a promise, but he failed to fulfill that promise before the end of his term. He is asking his constituents to put their trust in him again. He thinks that this time he will fix the problem. I wonder what message that sends to public servants, the public service and the people of his riding.

What does he say to his constituents who are fed up and disappointed with his performance within the Liberal government?

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, at my daughter's school there is a big banner saying “zero tolerance for bullying”. The previous Conservative member who spoke accused the Liberals of bullying, and now the member for Victoriaville is hurling epithets and questions at me. There should be zero tolerance for bullying here too. We have a right to speak without being interrupted.

To get back to what I was saying, that is not what we need in Quebec. We have already started to go green. GHG emissions per capita are two and a half times lower in Quebec than in the rest of Canada. A policy for the 21st century is to make polluting expensive and avoiding pollution profitable.

I can already hear the Liberals saying that they created the carbon tax, so let us talk about it. The government imposes a tax, then gives the money back to those who paid it. It is a circle that does not result in any real transfer of wealth from polluters to the good guys. It does not make it profitable to go green. It will not result in a true green shift. It does not entitle anyone to make green speeches. It is merely an image, just like the government has been since it was elected: an image, no more, no less, but definitely no more.

Let us move on. In the lead-up to the budget, the Bloc québécois reached out to Quebeckers, and what we consistently heard was that their main priorities are health and education. There is nothing about that in the budget. Health transfers have been capped at 3% for two years, and yet, health costs in Quebec have risen by 5.2%. You do not need a Nobel prize in mathematics to see that there is a problem. The healthcare system is stretched to its limit, and wait times are getting longer. Something has to give, and everyone knows it.

Everything I have just said about the healthcare system also applies to education. Teachers are as burnt out as nurses. It is the same problem, except that, in this case, transfers were capped at 3% 15 years ago. Health and education are Quebeckers’ two main priorities. There is nothing about that in Bill C-97. The government decided to gradually move away from Quebecker’s priorities. That is abundantly clear in Bill C-97.

Now, let us look at the measures the government has taken to stimulate the economy. Its primary measure involves infrastructure. In and of itself, that is a good thing, but the methods used are another story. By multiplying specific programs, each one with very strict criteria, Ottawa has ruined everything. Federal requirements have caused a tug of war with Quebec and will paralyze the entire process. The result is striking: the money is starting to trickle down just before the election. We had to wait a long time. In the first two years of its term, the government spent $100 per Quebecker and $700 for each Canadian outside Quebec.

We know the federal government is building precious little infrastructure. It owns barely 2% of all public infrastructure, while the provinces and municipalities own 98%. Through federal transfers, the government is financing infrastructure that does not belong to it, that is not within its jurisdiction and that it does not have the means to prioritize intelligently. The government had good intentions, but the whole undertaking has been a monumental failure on the ground.

The money is not flowing. The federal criteria are too rigid and do not meet communities' needs. During the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to transfer blocks of infrastructure funding. They promised to mind their own business and do their job. That is yet another broken promise, and Quebec is paying the price.

As I said, my leader and I have been travelling around a lot listening to Quebeckers. People do not realize how future-focused Quebec is. Quebeckers are creative and innovative. Yesterday's tinkerers are now developing video games, designing new aircraft and working on artificial intelligence. Year after year, Quebec accounts for between 40% and 45% of Canada's tech exports, even though its share of Canada's economy is only half that much.

In metropolitan areas across Quebec, there are at least 5,000 technology startups. I think of it as Silicon Valley North. What is in Bill C-97 for technology? An aerospace policy? No. Patient capital to let our technology start-ups develop here in Canada rather than being bought out by U.S. web giants? Not that either.

However, there is some venture capital to help out the rest of Canada. That is how it is in all areas. When Quebec succeeds, Ottawa is not there. Take supply management, for example. Our regional agriculture lends itself well to local distribution. That is the future. Instead of helping, the government is hurting agriculture. It has signed three trade agreements with three breaches, and not a single penny has been paid to farmers.

We scoured Bill C-97 for the compensation, but it is not there. Our producers were taken for a ride. They will get nothing before the election. That is also the case for Davie. Does Bill C-97 announce a review of its horrible naval strategy? The answer is obviously no.

The same goes for the fight against tax havens. These loopholes allow banks and multi-millionaires to get out of paying taxes. The government needs to act fast, but instead, it has legalized three new tax havens. In my private member's bill, I proposed a working solution to close the loopholes, but, of course, all the Liberals but one voted it down. Like the sheriff of Nottingham, they would rather defend fat cats than low-income workers. The Conservatives also voted against my bill, but at least they were being true to type. Unlike the Liberals, they do not try to dress up as Robin Hood.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address some of the failings of the Liberal government over the last four years and reflect upon just how disastrous it has been.

The heckling continues over there. The Liberals never miss an opportunity to get some good heckling in. Our colleagues across the way are chirping loud and doing all they can to throw us off. However, it will not work. I have been chirped at by the best and they definitely are not the best.

I rise today to talk to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. Essentially, it is an extension of the government's attempt to cover up what could be actually the biggest affront to our democracy in our country's history. It has attempted to cover up potentially the biggest corruption at the highest levels of our government, and that is the SNC-Lavalin case. That is what we are seeing here today. I bring us back to that again because I feel I have to. The gallery is packed. I know Canadians from coast to coast to coast knew this speaker was coming up.

I would be remiss if I did not remind Canadians from all across our country that it was day 10 of the 2015 election when the then member of Papineau committed to Canadians that under his government, he would let the debate reign. He said that he would not resort to parliamentary tricks such as omnibus bills or closure of debate. He also told Canadians around that same time that he would balance the budget in 2019. Those are three giant “oops”, perhaps disingenuous comments. I do not think he has lived up to any of them at this point.

As of today, the government has invoked closure over 70 times. Why? Because the government does not like what it is hearing. If the Liberals do not like what the opposition is saying and they do not want Canadians to hear the truth, they invoke closure. This means we cannot debate really important legislation. They limit the amount of time for debate on that legislation. The BIA, Bill C-97, is just one of them. Does that sound like letting the debate reign? It does not.

It is interesting that whenever things go sideways for the Prime Minister, a couple of things happen. We see him even less in the House or something always happens to change the channel. That is what we have today.

Bill C-97 is really just a cover-up budget. We have talked about that. It just goes in line with more and more of the government's kinds of wacky ways, where it says it will spend money and perhaps it doles it out. However, the money is not really going to things that Canadians need the most.

We see $600 million in an election year being given to the media, a media that is supposed to be impartial. That is a $600 million bailout.

We also know that in the previous budget, approximately $500 million was given to the Asian Infrastructure Bank. That $500 million is not being spent in Canada for one piece of an infrastructure.

I rose to talk about a few things. One of the things that is really disappointing for me is this. When the Liberals came to power in 2015, a lot of promises were made, and this one hits home for us. I have brought this up time and again in the House. The Liberals said that they would put an end to the softwood lumber dispute.

I think it was in 2016 that the Prime Minister stood in the House and told Canadians that he was going to have a deal done within 100 days. He had a new BFF, the Minister of International Trade Diversification said. Both were just giddy. They were going to get this deal done and put an end to the softwood lumber irritant once and for all, yet last week, we found out from the Senate Liberal leader that the Prime Minister had other priorities ahead of softwood lumber.

Over 140 communities and over 140,000 jobs are tied to forestry in my province of British Columbia. Forestry is a cornerstone industry in my province, yet it was not a priority for the Prime Minister in renegotiating his NAFTA deal.

What we are seeing with the Liberal government is that rural Canadians are just not its focus.

Last week I also met with some real estate folks and some Canadian homebuilder folks. They told me that the Liberal government's B-20 stress test and the shared equity program, which is geared toward trying to get Canadians into homes, is actually hurting that industry. The real estate industry is saying that the B-20 stress test, which was geared more for Toronto and Vancouver markets but is all across the country, impacts rural Canadians negatively .

Almost $15 billion has been kept out of that industry, meaning that it is harder for Canadians to get into the home ownership they strive for. It is a step into the middle class. People put money toward something they own rather than putting it into something that someone else owns. The government's failed B-20 policy and the shared equity program is hurting Canadians. It is another example of how Canadians are worse off with the Liberal government.

I will bring us to a couple of years ago. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Defence all have it down pat. They can put their hands on their hearts and say that they really care, yet it is the same Prime Minister who told veterans that they were asking for too much.

Yesterday was a very important day, because we saw the closure of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls commission and we saw its report. The government knew that this day was coming, but did it put any money in the 2019 budget for that? There is nothing.

The Liberals like to say that Canadians are better off than they were under our previous Conservative administration, but it is actually the opposite. Canadians are worse off since the Liberal government took over. Eighty-one per cent of middle-income Canadians are seeing higher taxes since the Liberal government came to power. The average income increase for middle income families is $840. The government's higher pension plan premiums could eventually cost Canadians up to $2,200 per household. The Liberals cancelled the family tax cut of up to $2,000 per household. They cancelled the arts and fitness tax credit of up to $225 per child. They cancelled the education and textbook tax credits of up to $560 per student. The government's higher employment insurance premiums are up $85 per worker. The Liberal carbon tax could cost up to $1,000 per household and be as high as $5,000 in the future.

The Prime Minister called small businesses tax cheats. The government's intrusive tax measures for small businesses will raise taxes on thousands of family businesses across Canada.

The list goes on and on. Bill C-97 is just the capping of a scandal-ridden administration, and to that, I say, good riddance.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just 10 minutes to talk about Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures. I would have liked to have my colleague answer my question, since he had the time and it was not too complicated.

When the Liberals were in opposition and during the 2015 election campaign, they promised to stop this trend of including measures that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget in the budget and budget implementation bills. This is an undemocratic measure and practice. It forces us to vote on the budget, which is a confidence vote, and on measures that should be considered separately from the budget.

The Liberals were critical of this practice for four years, but they continue to utilize this undemocratic process.

I would like to talk about Bill C-97 and the budget in general, not necessarily about what is in the budget or the bill, but about what is not there. Over the past four years I have raised some very important issues highlighting how the Liberals did not keep their promises.

The first thing that I wanted from Bill C-97 was to see that the Minister of Finance was keeping his promise to address the issue of tax transfers for businesses and farms. The tax transfer issue is important because, at present, an individual who owns a small business or family farm and wants to transfer it to his children or a family member must pay more tax than if he transferred or sold it to a stranger or someone who is not a family member. There is a very simple reason for this. Selling to a stranger triggers a capital gain with a set of exemptions. However, the profits from the sale to children are treated as dividends and fully taxed.

In 2016, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-274, to address this issue. The bill sought to ensure that these two types of transactions received equal treatment and that individuals would not be at a disadvantage when selling their assets to their children.

I spent a year working on Bill C-274. I visited many areas of Canada, particularly the maritime provinces, which are represented by 32 Liberal members. I did not go to speak with MPs, but rather to speak with representatives of chambers of commerce and organizations that advocate for fishers and farmers. Everyone agrees that this legislation is necessary. I would even say that the tax treatment involved when businesses and family farms are sold or transferred is one of the top concerns of small business owners.

I worked on this for a year. At the end of that year, when it was time to begin debating the bill, I had the support of about 25 Liberal members. I had the support of the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the independent members of the House. The only thing missing was the support I needed from the Liberals. I was able to get the support of at least 25 members after making citizens aware, citizens who then spoke to their MPs about it.

The bill made it through its first hour of debate, but then, before the start of the second hour, the Minister of Finance made a surprising announcement. He said that the bill was going to cost the government between $800 million and $1.2 billion in lost revenue. It was surprising because the tax specialists we hired to study the impacts of the bill estimated the tax loss at between $90 million and $100 million, which is hardly peanuts, but still an acceptable cost to insure that we level the playing field, so to say.

Clearly, these are two different price ranges. The Minister of Finance took his department's figures and successfully convinced a string of Liberal MPs that, though he understands how important this bill is for SMEs and family farms, they had to vote against it because losing $1 billion in tax revenue would be irresponsible. He promised that, by the end of this Parliament, there would be a tax measure in the budget that would truly meet those needs. He promised that.

In the meantime, there have been three budgets and five budget implementation bills. There is still nothing to deal with this inequity, this injustice that exists for owners of small business, family farms, and fish companies who want to transfer their business to their children.

I am appealing to the Liberal members who represent rural and farming regions and who have a lot of SMEs in their riding to think about the consequences of voting against Bill C-274. Once again, there is no measure in this budget bill to address the tax inequity and unfairness. That is the first thing I wanted to note. The Minister of Finance broke the promise he made to his own caucus, to correct the situation in a later budget. The election is fast approaching and this still has not been addressed. My colleagues can be sure that this issue will be raised in a number of ridings come election time. Liberal candidates will have to defend the finance minister's position, as well as his failure.

Another issue that is very important to MPs from rural areas is cell coverage. We hear a lot about investment in high-speed Internet, and clearly, there has been some. Not everyone has access, but there has been some investment. However, none of the new Liberal or Conservative programs have included measures for cell coverage, even though it is so important. In my riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, 13 of the 39 municipalities I represent have little or no cell coverage. Over 1,000 people live in the municipality of Squatec, and they have no cell coverage unless they find exactly the right spot on top of a little hill or on the second floor of the high school.

We have raised this issue repeatedly in the House. The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has brought it to the government's attention many times during question period. The government's answers always focus on investment in high-speed Internet. Those are two different things. Investing in high-speed Internet does not mean investing in cell coverage. Essentially, telecom companies are not interested in investing in rural regions without adequate population density. Individual companies will not risk making that investment because it could end up benefiting all the other companies. The government needs to intervene because the market has failed, but the Liberal government has done nothing for four years now.

Several members are concerned about this issue. I am thinking of the member for Laurentides—Labelle and the member for Pontiac, who represent large rural areas and who tentatively bring up this issue from time to time. We voted on a motion moved by the member for Pontiac that emphasized the urgent need for action. That is the problem right there. The government talks about the urgent need to act, but it never does, even though it is in a position to do so. If the government does not want to make the necessary investments so that rural regions and rural residents are no longer treated as second class, then concrete action needs to be taken.

If the government does not want to make real investments, it needs to think of another solution to take the responsibility for making investments away from the companies and give it to an independent Canadian agency, for example. That agency would be funded by the companies as a condition of licence, and it could make investment decisions and acquire the necessary spectrum to do so. That would ensure coverage in all of the regions that would not otherwise have it, and all of the companies that made investments could also benefit from the new coverage. That is one solution that the government could implement. Another solution would be for the government to invest in cell coverage as it did for high-speed Internet.

There are solutions. All it takes is a little goodwill. However, since we began raising this issue, I have not seen any goodwill from the Liberals in this regard.

I will not have much time to talk about the third item, but I brought it up in my question to my colleague earlier. It is the fact that the Liberals did not keep their promise to table budget bills that actually focus on budget-related issues. Instead they chose to play petty politics and try to speed through their legislative agenda by throwing in tons of measures that have nothing to do with the budget. This Liberal tactic is as politically cynical now as it was when it was first used by the Conservatives from 2011 to 2015.

For all of these reasons, I find myself unable to vote for this bill. I am happy to have had a chance to explain why.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we currently have a very late night vote scheduled for this evening at 11:25 p.m. I know we are all planning on being back here for that vote, but I would like to propose a motion that I have circulated to the other parties, because I think we actually could move the voting to right after Oral Questions. It would probably better organize the business of the day. We sent it earlier.

I would like to propose that notwithstanding any standing or special order or usual practice of the House in relation to the business of the House today, the deferred recorded division on the opposition motion standing in the name of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, currently scheduled for tonight at 11:25 p.m. be deferred anew to immediately following the time provided for Oral Questions later this day; and that at the conclusion of the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-97 an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, or statements by members not seeking—

Bill C-97—Time Allocation Motion

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that my colleague can list the excellent measures included in budget implementation act, 2019, No. 1. These measures are important for all Canadians.

She mentioned the support that we are giving to seniors who want to return to work. We are exempting them from guaranteed income supplement penalties on the first $5,000 they earn. That is an excellent measure.

I would also like to hear my colleague talk about the measures we put in place to make it easier for young people to buy their first home.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day. This is the 69th time the Liberals have moved time allocation and closure, basically shutting down debate in this Parliament.

Comparatively, we remember the dismal Harper years, but proportionally, the Harper government actually used closure less often per bill passed than the Liberals have. The Liberals have now gone even lower than the former Harper government did.

That is quite contrary to what the Prime Minister promised back in 2015. He promised Canadians he would respect Parliament, not to shut down debate, as is happening. He also promised not to introduce these massive, omnibus “everything but the kitchen sink” pieces of legislation, which Bill C-97 is. It is a massive budget omnibus bill. It is worse than anything the Harper government produced, and within it are very toxic provisions, including provisions that cut off the ability of refugees to come to Canada.

It has been decried by immigration and refugee groups right across the country. The only group that seems to support the Liberals in this are the white supremacists who have offered real support for the despicable aspects of the bill. Is the real reason the government is trying to ram through this omnibus legislation because it does not want the public to know about the despicable aspects it has hidden in this omnibus bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-97—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, 2019, No. 1.

Canada's economy is one of the fastest growing in the G7. Since 2015, Canadians have created more than one million new jobs, with our lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. Our government is making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy through budget 2019, and it will continue to help middle-class Canadians get ahead.

I would like to highlight what budget 2019 means to my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City. The new Canada training benefit will help constituents in my riding gain the training and skills to be successful in their careers. With this new benefit, working Canadians will get four weeks for training every four years, up to $1,000 to help pay for the training, income support to help with everyday expenses, and the security of knowing that they will have a job to come back to when the training is done. To support this new training benefit, we have relieved small employers with EI premiums by introducing an EI small business premium rebate. The Canada training benefit will help my constituents get the skills they need to find and keep good jobs or to get retraining to help secure work for years to come.

Our government has also made big investments to support students and youth in my riding who attend Kwantlen Polytechnic University or other universities across Canada. We have doubled the number of jobs created through the Canada summer jobs program, increased Canada student grants, launched the Canada Service Corps and made huge investments in the youth employment strategy.

This summer, in Cloverdale—Langley City, the Canada summer jobs program has allocated $616,519 in funding and has approved 154 jobs so that our youth can gain meaningful, paid work experience. Helping more youth get work experience through the Canada summer jobs program is just one way this government is helping to grow and support the middle class and people working hard to join it.

Through budget 2019, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development launched Canada's first-ever national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy sets new poverty reduction targets and establishes the federal government as a full partner in the fight against poverty. Our poverty reduction strategy also builds on the progress we have made together so far.

One of the very first things we did after being elected in 2015 was introduce the Canada child benefit, which has lifted more than half a million Canadians, including more than 300,000 children, out of poverty. The Canada child benefit has allocated nearly $7.4 million per month to 24,440 children living in Cloverdale—Langley City.

We also, as a government, immediately reversed the previous government's disastrous changes to the guaranteed income supplement and old age security. We restored the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 and made benefits for seniors more generous, which is helping lift another 100,000 seniors out of poverty every year, including many in my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City. Further, through new horizons for seniors, five organizations in my riding have received over $80,000 in funding, including, among others, the Lower Fraser Valley Aboriginal Society and the Royal Canadian Legion. This is what real change looks like.

We also know that no Canadian should have to choose between paying for prescriptions and putting food on the table. With budget 2019, our government is taking the next steps toward the implementation of a national pharmacare program by creating a Canadian drug agency to negotiate better drug prices on behalf of all Canadians, putting in place a national strategy for rare disease drugs to help Canadians access the life-saving drugs they need and creating a national formulary to provide consistency across the country. It is critically important that we get this right and do what is best and equitable for employers, employees and all Canadians.

To combat climate change, we are making zero emission vehicles more accessible for Canadians by providing a $5,000 federal incentive. In B.C., this can be combined with the provincial $5,000 credit and the $3,000 or $6,000 Scrap-It program incentive, depending on certain criteria.

We are also building infrastructure support for electric vehicles and zero emission vehicles and are encouraging new investments and innovation in zero emission vehicle manufacturing here in Canada. By investing in the future of transportation now, we are positioning Canada's automotive sector to grow, supporting clean jobs and growth and protecting the future for our children and grandchildren.

Our government knows that if we do not have a plan for the environment, we do not have a plan for the economy or for the future, and that is why we put a price on pollution in jurisdictions without one. We are making zero emission vehicles more affordable and are investing in clean technology and public transportation.

My beautiful province of British Columbia has had a price on pollution for over 10 years. Contrary to the narrative offered by the Conservatives, we have led Canada in economic growth and have reduced our emissions over the last decade.

Our government also knows the importance of investing in infrastructure. It not only creates good middle-class jobs for today but also strong local economies people can rely on for years to come. By helping to reduce traffic, keeping our families safe and addressing the challenges of climate change, our investments in infrastructure are setting our communities up for success.

Budget 2019 gives a one-time transfer of $2.2 billion through the federal gas tax fund to address short-term priorities in municipalities and first nation communities. In my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City, approximately $2 million has been secured for TransLink to cure congestion and improve transit options through the gas tax transfer.

Over the past four years, we have also secured federal funding of $4.46 million for the phase two expansion of the Surrey museum and $1.9 million to upgrade the Cloverdale Athletic Park multi-sport facility and field house. Better infrastructure, with improved public transit, more affordable housing and new community facilities, makes Cloverdale—Langley City a great place to start a business and raise a family.

We believe that every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. Since taking office in 2015, we have made the most investments in housing in Canadian history. Our government launched Canada's first-ever national housing strategy, a once-in-a-generation $40-billion investment to fight homelessness and improve access to affordable housing across the country. By building, renewing and repairing housing in Canada, we are not just investing in our communities but are investing in people. We will keep working hard to make sure that Canadians have safe and affordable housing that meets their needs in communities where their families can thrive.

Budget 2019 also proposes to further increase compliance actions in the real estate sector by providing $50 million over five years and $10 million ongoing to create a real estate task force that would focus initially on the greater Toronto and greater Vancouver areas. This would benefit housing affordability in my area of Cloverdale—Langley City.

I would also like to speak about division 24 of part 4 of this act, which states:

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.

Having spent over 32 years working in Parks Canada prior to politics, this clause initially caused me some concern. We heard another member raise that concern in the House today. However, after speaking with the acting CEO of the Parks Canada Agency, I was reassured that this would help the agency deal with certain aspects of its operations, including asset recapitalization, and would have no impact on revenue and new park establishment, which are very important to the Parks Canada Agency. Our government knows and understands that we must always work hard to preserve the natural spaces we enjoy.

Finally, we know that building a better Canada must include advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. That is why budget 2019 includes important new measures that would help advance self-determination and improve the quality of life for first nations, Inuit, and Métis nations people.

Budget 2019 would help create a better future for indigenous people by improving access to clean drinking water and health services, funding distinctions-based post-secondary education, supporting indigenous languages and promoting entrepreneurship and business in indigenous communities. Our government will continue to advance the important work of reconciliation for a better future for indigenous people and for all Canadians.

I am proud to support this bill, knowing how my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City would benefit from the measures contained in Bill C-97.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise on traditional territory that the Algonquin people have called home for generations upon generations to speak on Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, 2019, No. 1, and specifically about the amendments our government is putting forward for the national housing strategy act. We are enshrining into law the right to housing as a human right and requiring every future federal government to develop and maintain a national housing strategy and to be accountable to Canadians.

Since we formed government in 2015, we have stayed focused on a plan to grow the middle class and support those working hard to join it. That plan is working.

One million jobs have been created over the past three and a half years. Middle-class Canadians are paying lower taxes. The Canada child benefit has cut the child poverty rate in the country by 40%, and 825,000 Canadians are no longer living in poverty. More than one million families have a safe and affordable roof over their heads because of the investments our government has made in housing. That is 1,432 more families in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha with that safe and affordable roof over their heads, we are just getting started.

In November 2017, we announced Canada's first-ever national housing strategy, a 10-year plan, with $40 billion invested, to give more Canadians a place to call home.

The national housing strategy is built around the fact that housing is a human right. The strategy is grounded in the principles of inclusion, accountability, participation and non-discrimination. It will contribute to helping Canada meet its sustainable development goals by 2030, and affirms the commitment we made 40 years ago when we ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

In budget 2019, we took our commitment to housing even further. We are investing an additional $10 billion in the rental construction financing initiative, which will help people who rely on rental and social housing to find more housing opportunities. We have introduced the first-time homebuyer incentive, which will help more Canadians achieve the dream of owning a home.

Thanks to these and other investments, the national housing strategy is now a 10-year, $55-billion plan, and we are seeing the fruits of our commitment in new and renewed housing units across the country.

Next year, the Canada housing benefit will come into effect. This is an additional $2,500 a year for low-income Canadians. It is a portable fund that will follow them wherever they choose to live to ensure they have greater access to affordable housing.

Our government's investments in housing are already at unprecedented levels. However, that is not the only reason the national housing strategy act represents such a historic step in giving more Canadians a place to call home. What makes the national housing strategy act truly transformational for Canadians is that it recognizes the human rights-based approach to housing that underlies the national housing strategy and enshrines it into law.

During the committee stage of Bill C-97, our government put forward significant amendments to recognize that the right to adequate housing was a fundamental human right, affirmed in international law. We recognize that housing is critical not just to the well-being of all Canadians, but to building sustainable, inclusive communities. We have ensured that Canada's first-ever national housing strategy is not also the last, by requiring that every future federal government develop and maintain a national housing strategy that takes into account the key principle of housing as a human right.

Today is a historic day for housing in Canada because we are introducing amendments to the national housing strategy act that will further entrench and protect the commitments we have already made. These amendments would ensure greater accountability and they would give vulnerable Canadians a greater voice in housing decisions that affect them.

The national housing strategy act also calls for the creation of a federal housing advocate, supported by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Thanks to today's amendments, we are enhancing the advocate's role in identifying and researching systemic housing challenges. The advocate will report to the minister responsible for housing on these issues. Its recommendations will be tabled in Parliament, and the minister and the government will be required to respond.

The federal housing advocate will be able to consult with vulnerable Canadians, people with lived experience and experts to better understand the impact of housing need and homelessness.

The national housing strategy act would create a national housing council supported by CMHC, which will act as a focal point for housing policy discussions on the national housing strategy and will advise the minister on how to improve housing outcomes. With today's amendments, we are empowering the national housing council with even more freedom to support the federal housing advocate and to report on the findings to the minister responsible.

Today's amendments detail how the minister and the government will be required to report back to the House and to Canadians on the recommendations they receive. Simply stating that housing is a human right means nothing unless there are robust accountability and reporting mechanisms in place. With these amendments, we are doing precisely that.

These changes, to say nothing of the national housing strategy itself, came about as a result of cross-Canada consultations with thousands of people from all walks of life. Their stories, their experiences and their challenges, along with their expertise, provided us with a fuller understanding of the state of housing in Canada today.

While I am proud to say that our investments have made a significant impact on giving more Canadians a place to call home, we recognize there is much more work to do. It is thanks to the community of stakeholders, of people with lived experience, those in housing need and experts, that we are able to take the historic steps we are taking today.

I have to take this opportunity to thank my constituents in Peterborough—Kawartha for their contributions to the housing strategy development process, the minister responsible for this file and, of course, the member for Spadina—Fort York, who is forever a champion for safe, affordable housing in Canada.

Today's amendments fulfill one of Canada's key international commitments. We are a signatory to the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. As such, we have a responsibility to meet one of the covenant's core commitments: to progressively realize the right to adequate housing as part of an adequate standard of living for our citizens.

Today's amendments also take us further in fulfilling our promise to Canadians. When we were elected in 2015, we pledged to give more Canadians a place to call home. We promised to prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable people and communities. With the national housing strategy, and now with the national housing strategy act, we are fulfilling those promises.

No other federal government has taken such a comprehensive, long-term approach to housing policy. Never before has a rights-based approach to housing been part of housing policy in this country. These are major milestones that will improve the lives of Canadians, now and for generations to come.

Personally speaking, when my family first moved to Peterborough, we did not have a place to call home. We lived in a shelter provided by the YWCA. We benefited from social housing soon after. It was having that access to safe, secure housing that allowed my family and me to put our lives back together and to feel like we have a place we can call home, and a community in which we belong.

On behalf of my family and so many millions of Canadians who have been transformed by access to housing services and by housing workers in this country, I would like to thank those who have come before us, those who have contributed to the national housing strategy and the national housing strategy act, the team that has developed this really smart approach to lifting Canadians out of poverty and creating a stronger middle class and, of course, every single member of the House who will rise in support of this transformational bill.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in amendment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, knowing that we have very little time left, I want to say it is unfortunate that deletions are necessary at this point. I want to again put on the record the deep unhappiness of many of us seeing, in Bill C-97, the use of an omnibus budget bill to bring in provisions such as the ones I am seeking to delete through this motion today.

I will sketch out that although I did submit a number of amendments, they were similar to some submitted by the New Democratic Party. I strongly support my amendments and those of the New Democratic Party that attempt to remove from this omnibus budget bill fundamental changes to how we treat immigrants and refugees.

The right of a refugee to come to Canada is enshrined in our international obligations. There has been so much said that constitutes misunderstanding about the nature of refugees. The language started cropping up under the previous government that people who showed up here with just the clothes on their backs were somehow “jumping the queue”. I remember having debates on this point with the current premier of Alberta when he was Minister of Immigration.

I used to do work in refugee and immigration law in Halifax. My clientele were such that I might have been described as specializing in ship-jumpers. In those days, the U.S.S.R. still existed. Young sailors from Soviet bloc countries would get to Halifax, literally walk off the ship and somehow find our law office.

Nowadays, as in those days, everyone is assessed. If they claim to be a refugee, they have to prove they have a legitimate fear of returning to their country. We can be critical of how long it takes for people to be assessed, but we cannot assert there is something wrong with people who come to this country and claim to be refugees. They have a right to be assessed fairly and to know what their situation is.

With respect to some of my ship-jumpers, I note parenthetically that I was so happy when, about a year ago, I got a call in my office from one of the young men I had helped. He had raised his family in Ontario and started his own business. He had done extremely well for himself. He wondered if I still remembered him. Well, I remembered Nicola. I am so thrilled that within a week of jumping ship, he had a job washing dishes in Halifax. He was provided housing. It was not great housing, but it was enough for him to find his feet.

The idea now is that we turn people away because of the safe third country agreement, which did not exist at the time. The idea that the United States is still a safe third country for many refugees does not hold water. It does not make sense to stop people who are coming to Canada with just the clothes on their backs. Most of the people who come across the New York-Quebec border have been women with children. People do not know this; people do not necessarily see in the news who is coming here looking for our help.

There are people who really need our help. We have seen children die in detention is U.S. holding camps. We have seen an attitude of the U.S. president that is the opposite of the words on the Statue of Liberty, to send forward “the homeless” and “Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.... I lift my lamp”. In contrast, “I will build a...wall” is what the current president says. He does not want “The wretched refuse of your teeming shore”, although these words on the Statue of Liberty are not exactly perfect for refugees.

Setting that aside, the spirit of these words makes clear that this country, our best friend and neighbour, used to be a welcoming place. The U.S. is a country of refugees and immigrants, as are we in Canada, being on indigenous territory. We are a country of immigrants.

We should not sneak restrictive provisions into an omnibus budget bill, claiming there is a loophole, but should instead get rid of them and the safe third country agreement. We should be saying that we no longer regard the U.S. as a safe country. We should not have a safe country agreement with a country that is capable of rejecting people for all manner of reasons.

As my time is almost up, I want to turn to the second package of amendments I submitted. They were were not shared by any other party or MP. They come from my personal experience. I will return to this whenever we come back to debate on Bill C-97.

Provisions that I think others may have missed, in clauses 334 and 335, relate to the Parks Canada Agency.

When I worked in Environment Canada in the 1980s, there was no Parks Canada Agency. It was a branch of Environment Canada, like any other branch of Environment Canada and it was treated as part of the department.

The Parks Canada civil service of the day was sold the idea that it would be better off as an agency. One of the main reasons used was that it would be able to keep money that would otherwise lapse. If it were an agency, the argument was that it could hang on to more of its budget and could build more forward planning.

I do not think the Parks Canada Agency was a good idea. It has not served the interest of making it easier or more integrated in how we treat Parks Canada and its ecological integrity. After all these years, the rationale for making it an agency will disappear if we do not pass my amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, apparently some of my colleagues are not well-acquainted with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and keep breaking the rules. Nevertheless, I will repeat what I was saying.

The Department of Finance releases provincial fiscal performance data. It is important to note that New Democratic provincial governments have the best fiscal performance in Canada, so I do not think my Conservative colleague is in any position to be giving me lessons on that subject, nor are my Liberal colleagues, to be sure.

Let's return to the the matter before us, the report stage study of Bill C-97. We began by reading the many motions in amendment at report stage. Members may have noticed that I presented a few, so I would like to take this opportunity to talk about those amendments.

Today we have no choice but to oppose Bill C-97 and call for the deletion of some totally unacceptable parts that have no business being in there and were harshly criticized by witnesses at the Standing Committee on Finance, which held numerous meetings about this and spent many hours on it. The fact is, some of the bill's clauses are no good and must be taken out.

Three sections the NDP wants to remove have to do with privatizing the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, whose agents are doing an excellent job of keeping passengers safe in airports and on planes across the country. The government wants to privatize this agency, a Crown corporation, in the hope of improving the services, but, given what we heard in committee, this is not the right course of action. It would be better to fund the agency and give it all the tools it needs. All revenues from airline tickets should return to the agency in full so that it can do its work properly and address the very real concerns of Canada's airports and airlines, which are at times frustrated by the agency's work—and rightly so.

That is why we need to move forward with these changes but, above all, provide this agency with resources. Privatization is never the solution, as the witnesses said. We therefore need to remove this part of the bill today to prevent this privatization. There is no doubt that this is the beginning of a federal effort to privatize air transportation and airports.

Since it took office, the government has been saying that it does not intend to privatize airports. In the beginning, the Liberals said that they were looking into the issue and were open to ideas, but they seemed to have ruled out the possibility of privatization. However, we now have proof that the government is moving forward on privatization, starting with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Another amendment that we are proposing concerns the Hazardous Products Act. The Canadian Labour Congress has sounded the alarm in this regard, because these changes will relax the rules regarding the information available to workers about the hazardous products that they have to use every day as part of their jobs. The government kowtowed to the hazardous chemicals industry and decided to relax these rules, thereby endangering the safety of workers.

The Canadian Labour Congress was very clear in that regard, saying that the government should not move forward on this and that those rules should actually be strengthened to ensure workers across the country have access to the ingredient labels of the products they come in contact with. That would allow them to respond in the short term, in case of an accident, and in the long term, since these products could have health implications that may not be detected for years.

That is why it is important to have strict regulations to keep the list of ingredients of these products for as long as possible, so that we can properly respond to any potential health problems that may affect workers.

There is nothing surprising about the other change that we are proposing, which my colleague from Vancouver East mentioned many times. It has to do with the government's callous changes to refugee protection in Canada.

The government is pleased to have the support of one Faith Goldy. In fact, she supported the Liberals' bill that would make these changes. The Liberals criticized the Conservative leader because he was seen with her, but they are only to happy to get her approval. She applauded the government for its changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because it closes the door on refugees. With this bill, the government is creating two classes of refugees: those who entered through regular channels and those who entered irregularly. It is creating two parallel systems, which it says will do exactly the same thing. That raises questions.

The government tried to calm the waters in committee. It made amendments to this part of the bill to appease witnesses, who unanimously stated that it was a bad idea and that the government should simply withdraw this part of the bill. However, that is not enough, and only shows the amateurism of the Liberals on this issue. The government is catering to the extreme right in Canada with this measure but, in reality, what it will do is put in place a costly and useless process for doing what is already being done at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The department was even forced to admit that there would now be a process, known as a pre-removal risk assessment, for people who entered irregularly. The government is creating this type of hearing for refugees even though the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada already exists. The government and the department were forced to admit that there would indeed be two nearly identical processes for two types of refugees.

The government is therefore creating two classes of refugees: those who are entitled to the full process, with all the rights associated with it, such as the right to natural justice, and those who are subject to an inferior process and who will have fewer rights. This will be an expedited process that will will not always grant a hearing to asylum seekers, who have the right to be heard by an impartial person. The pre-removal risk assessment is very much a part of the immigration department and cannot be compared to the work of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which is a quasi-judicial entity respected around the world.

The government is deciding to turn a blind eye. Instead of giving the board the resources it needs to do its job, the government is creating a parallel process. It was completely indifferent to what numerous experts said in committee. There were lawyers and representatives from international refugee protection organizations, among others. There was even a refugee, who crossed the border irregularly and lost the use of his hands in the extreme cold in Manitoba. He said that under the new rules in this bill, he would have been sent back to Ghana, where his life was in danger. This is the Liberal approach, which puts refugees in danger and sends them back to their countries of origin, as one witness pointed out. The government really missed the mark in many respects with Bill C-97.

This concludes my remarks on the report stage study of the bill, the committee's work, the testimony that was heard and the reasons I must oppose the bill today. At the very least, the most problematic parts of the bill should be taken out. We hope the government will see reason, because this is its last chance to remove the contentious provisions from this bill. I hope I have the support of all my colleagues to at least fix this awful bill.

Speaker’s Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There are 57 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-97. Motions Nos. 1 to 57 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 57 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume debate at report stage of Bill C-93, an act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis. Tomorrow, we will start report stage of Bill C-97, budget implementation act, 2019, No. 1.

Currently, the intention is to have Monday, June 3 and Friday, June 7 as allotted days.

Next week, priority shall be given to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act; Bill C-93, concerning cannabis pardons; Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; Bill C-88, concerning the Mackenzie Valley; and government business no. 29, the national climate emergency.

We will also give priority to bills coming back from the Senate.

Finally, I would like to mention that following Private Members' Business on Tuesday and Wednesday evening next week, we will have three hours set aside for speeches by members not seeking re-election in the next election.

These are our current intentions, but as we know, things can always change.

Finance

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019, and other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has agreed to report it with amendments.

I want to thank all committee members who put great effort into researching and debating the substantial budget implementation act. I have to admit that sometimes the debate at committee was boisterous.

I also want to thank witnesses who brought forward their concerns and suggestions. Certainly, I must thank the legislative clerk and the Library of Parliament analysts for all the work they did on this matter.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening. I am always proud to speak on behalf of my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, whom I am proud to represent.

I would like to tell my colleagues who are here this evening that I am proud to represent Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and also Deux-Montagnes, Saint-Eustache, Boisbriand and Rosemère. We have been dealing with flooding again this year, but we are working hard for our fellow citizens.

Today I am debating Motion No. 30, which is very important. This motion is about how the House will operate from now until we adjourn for the summer. This is important because it will allow us to make progress on files that are important to Canadians, including the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. These issues are the reason Canadians elected us.

Motion No. 30 will enable the House to act on the excellent work our committees have already done. I want to emphasize that this work is not carried out solely by committee members from this side of the House. This work is carried out by all parties and all individuals on committees so that proposed legislation can come back to the House and be voted on before we rise for the summer. This is very important.

There has been a lot of talk during today's debate about how the government's legislative measures have reflected only what the government wanted to do. My participation in committee activities and the work I have been able to accomplish there have taught me that, most of the time, committee members work well together. They collaborate, they set partisanship aside to some degree and, more often than not, they are able to compromise. At least, that was the case in the committees I belonged to.

I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade for two and a half years. We always agreed with members from across the aisle on free trade agreements, whether with Europe or Asia or NAFTA 2.0, on which we worked very hard. There is only one party we never agree with when it comes to such deals.

I was also a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for two and a half years. It is a non-partisan committee whose goal is to ensure that official language minority communities are properly represented. I can assure the House that there was no partisanship. In my new role as deputy whip, I am now a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where there is a little more partisanship. Let us speak plainly.

If we do not adopt this motion, if we do not extend the sitting hours of the House, we will end up in a situation where all the work we have done will basically be lost before the fall election. That is why it is so important that we adopt Motion No. 30.

I want to highlight some of the important work done by the committees. I want to point out that during the 2015 election, the Liberal Party, of which I am a proud member, promised to strengthen parliamentary committees. We promised to have more respect for the fundamental role that parliamentarians play on committees in order to hold the government to account.

That commitment, included in the mandate letter of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, means that parliamentary committees are freer and better equipped to study legislation. Among the many changes that were made, committee chairs are now freely elected by the committee members. They are not appointed by the government. Voting is now done by secret ballot to allow members to vote freely for their selection for chair.

Now parliamentary secretaries also sit on committees, but as non-voting members. They can contribute to the discussions if necessary. They are present, enabling them to stay abreast of the committee's work. Since they do not have the right to vote, no one can accuse cabinet of interfering in the work of the committees. The standing orders that made these changes official were passed in June 2017. I believe, and I think most members would agree, that committees can now act more openly, more transparently and more freely.

I would like to briefly go over some of the major bills currently before Parliament that might not be voted on and passed by the end of the session if this motion is not adopted.

I will start with Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. This bill sets out the legislative framework and the principles needed to guide work among first nations, Inuit and Métis nations, provincial and territorial partners, and the Government of Canada to achieve truly meaningful reform in child and family services.

The purpose of this bill is twofold. First, it affirms the rights and jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services. Second, it sets out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to indigenous children, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality.

Bill C-92 is a milestone piece of legislation that would have significant impacts on the lives of indigenous youth, their families and their communities. It is an important step in advancing meaningful reconciliation and in implementing the vital recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The second example that I would like to give is, in my opinion, the most important bill for Canadians, and that is Bill C-97, budget implementation act, 2019, no. 1. This bill will affect Canadians across the country. It seeks to respond to Canadians' most pressing needs. For example, buying a house or condo is probably the most important investment most Canadians will make in their lifetimes. However, many Canadians are not able to enter the market. That is why, through budget 2019 and with Bill C-97, the government will build on Canada's national housing strategy and take action to improve the affordability of housing, especially for first-time homebuyers.

Our government also wants to make sure that Canada's seniors have more money in their pockets when they retire. That is why, with Bill C-97, the government is proposing to enhance the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption by providing a full or partial exemption on up to $15,000 and extending it to self-employment income.

This proposal was very well received by seniors in my riding. We have a labour shortage and we have seniors with incredible expertise. If seniors are able to work one day a week because of this measure, so much the better. Our society as a whole will reap the benefits. These seniors will pass on their knowledge to everyone around them and will have the opportunity to work if they so desire. It is a way for them to meet people, network and maintain friendships.

This is a very important measure for me. It will put more money in the pockets of eligible seniors who work. I want to reiterate that this measure was very well received by seniors in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Another measure concerns electric vehicles. We want to electrify transportation. The $5,000 federal subsidy has made a huge difference in my riding. The Quebec government already gives an $8,000 subsidy, and when you add the $5,000 from the federal government, it is incredible. That will considerably reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

All of that can be found in Bill C-97. It is absolutely crucial that we pass Motion No. 30 today so we have enough time to pass all this fantastic legislation. It is worth reiterating that this budget implementation bill is entirely consistent with the current government's agenda, which differs significantly from the previous government's agenda. We are steering Canada in a direction that will truly reduce inequality. We always talk about the middle class, but we have created one million jobs and have lifted 300,000 children out of poverty, not to mention the adults. We are the ones who have reduced inequality. We have the strongest economy, and the unemployment rate is at its lowest in over 40 years.

The previous government had very little interest in this important societal objective, namely reducing inequality in this country. On the contrary, during the Harper decade, inequality in Canada actually increased. The two examples of bills to be implemented, and also of budget items, will help us go even further.

These are two bills among others that we would like to pass before adjourning. For all these reasons, it is truly important that we pass the motion now to let us sit longer and ensure that we complete the work entrusted to us by Canadians.

I would also like to take a few minutes to speak about the amendments to the motion that were moved yesterday. I know that there has been a lot of discussion about the amount of time spent on government business compared to that spent on opposition motions and days. This is not about who gets what; the goal is to ensure that we can place more items on the agenda. That is why it is important to ensure that we sit longer into the evenings so we can do more.

The items I am talking about are the ones that all members from all parties in the House collaborated on in committee. This is why I personally cannot support the amendment. I do not think the amendment is particularly positive, because it does not address what we need to do, which is to examine more bills. Instead, it would proportionally increase the time available to each political party, which unfortunately reflects the partisan nature of this debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You want it on recycled paper. That wasn't in the motion. It's too late for that. I'm sorry, Pierre.

In any event, thank you, everyone, for your hard work on this bill. We are done ahead of deadline.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

On Thursday, we have the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board from 11 until 12. That will be televised. From 12 to 1 we will deal with committee business in camera.

With that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for your hard work on Bill C-97.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll read the letter so that it's on the record:

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, I would like to thank you for your letter of April 9, 2019, inviting our Committee to consider the subject matter of Part 4, Division 25, Subdivisions A, B, C and D (Clauses 336 to 386) of Bill C-97....

They go through the name of the act. It continues:

On Thursday, April 11, 2019, the Committee agreed to undertake a study of the subject matter of Clauses 336 to 386 of the Bill. On Tuesday, May 14, 2019, the Committee heard from senior officials of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, of Indigenous Services Canada, and of Justice Canada. Following this testimony, the Committee met today and considered recommended amendments to the Bill.

Today, after hearing from the witnesses and considering the provisions contained in Clauses 336 to 386 of the Bill, our Committee has agreed to the appended motion.

Thank you for the invitation to contribute to your deliberations. I wish you a productive discussion....

There is a motion attached, as follows:

Motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on Thursday, May 16, 2019....

1) Based on testimony we heard at our Committee, we are satisfied that the legislation, as currently drafted, achieves its intended purpose; however, we encourage the government as they move forward to ensure that they are proceeding with their work on a distinctions basis.

2) We believe that the these new departments are already better serving the distinct needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis, based on recognition and implementation of rights, respect, cooperation, and partnership and will continue improving the delivery of services, while supporting acceleration of Indigenous Peoples’ visions of self-determination. This legislation will, however, bring further clarity to our Indigenous partners regarding which of the new departments are now responsible for specific issues and programs.

3) We encourage the department to have a robust communications plan in place to inform both Indigenous peoples in Canada and officials working within the two departments of Indigenous Services and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs on the changes that will be enacted by this legislation.

That's it. There are really no recommended amendments, just those suggestions.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

As much as I personally agree with gender neutrality, the adoption of gender neutrality in federal legislation consists of a broader discussion that needs to take place outside of the conversation with regard to this bill. At this stage, modifying the bill, as suggested, would require a great amount of time which would lead to the bill not receiving royal assent before the House rises. The proposed approach is consistent with other recent bills, such as Bill C-97, which creates the departments of ISC and CIRNAC, as well as other bills. On this particular amendment, more work needs to be done outside the scope of the bill itself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll call the meeting to order. As everyone knows, we're still doing Bill C-97 and our continuation of clause-by-clause. We ended yesterday by finishing up with division 20.

We'll start with division 21. We have a witness here from Veterans Affairs. Faith McIntyre is the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic Policy with VAC. This relates to the Veterans Well-being Act.

If there are any questions on division 21 in clauses 318 to 322, we're open to that. I see none and there are no amendments in this section. Are we in agreement to carry clauses 318 to 322 on division?

(Clauses 318 to 322 inclusive agreed to on division)

You get off easy, Faith.

(On clause 323)

Starting with division 22, we have witnesses here from ESDC: Milena Gulia, Director of Policy and Research, Canada Student Loans Program; and Rachel Torrie, Senior Analyst, Canada Student Loans Program.

If there are any questions for officials, we're open to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There was good discussion.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

NDP-23 is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation. I will go through the reasons, Mr. Dusseault.

Clause 315 of Bill C-97 proposes the poverty reduction act. Amendment NDP-23 seeks to increase the maximum number of members on the national advisory council on poverty.

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, increasing the maximum number of members on the national advisory council on poverty would impose a charge on the public treasury and alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Turning to PV-6, it's deemed moved. Are there any comments?

Ms. Bendayan.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for speaking to poverty reduction in Canada. We know we're well ahead in reducing poverty and we're well ahead in all measures that we've laid out, which is great to see. It's great to see again that it's put into legislation via the BIA, Bill C-97.

With regard to the member's amendment, the proposed poverty reduction act already commits to reviewing Canada's official poverty line on a regular basis as determined by Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada, at the end of February, pointed out that we have reduced poverty by 825,000 individuals since we were elected. Statistics Canada is obviously now well funded after the cuts from the prior government and is well placed to determine when a comprehensive review must be launched. Statistics Canada launched a comprehensive review in 2018 in addition to the comprehensive reviews and new updates related to the changing prices of goods and services in the basket. The basket will be undertaken by Statistics Canada.

Thank you, Chair.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Dusseault, again, for speaking to poverty, and to the national poverty reduction act, which is now in this BIA legislation, Bill C-97.

The amendment that he has brought forward is not consistent with the existing language within the bill. The existing language states that poverty is the condition of a person who is deprived of the resources, means, choices and power necessary to acquire and maintain a basic level of living standard to facilitate integration and participation in society.

The proposed amendment is incompatible with the existing version.

For that reason, I will be not be supporting Mr. Dusseault's amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We are ready for the question on LIB-10.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

As I said, NDP-10 cannot be moved due to the line conflict.

NDP-11 is inadmissible because it's beyond the scope of the bill. Clause 313 of Bill C-97 proposes the national housing strategy act. Amendment NDP-11 brings several modifications to the strategy. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, NDP-11 seeks to provide the federal housing advocate with new duties and functions and to introduce new concepts that are beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

On NDP-12, Mr. Dusseault, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are on page 283 of the bill, which concerns the part to enact the National Housing Strategy Act. These amendments were inspired by the testimony we have heard. Many witnesses provided very convincing testimony before the committee. They highlighted the importance of recognizing housing as a fundament right. They argued that the proposed legislation, the National Housing Strategy Act, does not create a legislative framework that makes it possible to recognize housing as a right.

The Liberal government says that it wants to recognize housing as a right, but it is clear, as our witnesses have pointed out, that this is not what the legislation proposed in Bill C-97 does. The declaration simply states that the legislation recognizes the importance of housing to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person, that we must develop and maintain a national housing strategy to support improved housing outcomes, and that we must further the progressive realization of the right to housing.

Those are very vague terms that do not recognize that housing is a right in Canada. I'm here talking about law in Canada, but it should be pointed out that this right is recognized in international law in a number of conventions.

That is why I am proposing today the following amendment to subsection (a) of section 4 of the declaration:

(a) recognize that housing is a fundamental human right that is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to the development of sustainable and inclusive communities;

These terms are inspired by the recommendations made by witnesses. I also propose the addition of subsection (d), following subsections (a), (b) and (c) of the same section, which reads as follows:

(d) identify the particular needs and rights of Indigenous Peoples and the barriers that prevent them from meeting those needs and exercising those rights and, consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, co-develop strategies with Indigenous organizations to address those barriers and to enable Indigenous peoples to meet their needs and exercise their rights.

It is a matter of enshrining United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the proposed legislation on housing. Those rights must be recognized and protected as often as possible. So this is about integrating that aspect, which was omitted by the government.

My other proposal concerns the content of the strategy, which is covered on the next page of the bill. The amendment reads as follows:

(a) implement the housing policy, taking a human rights-based approach;

That follows up on what I was saying earlier—that we must recognize housing as a right and implement policies based on the fact that it is a right. To ensure the monitoring of results, I propose that lines 8 to 10 on page 284 be replaced with the following passage:

tives, timelines and desired outcomes consistent with the housing policy;

A bit further on, I also propose that subsection (e) be added to the content of the strategy:

(e) provide public education resources and support for community initiatives designed to advance the right to housing;

I also propose adding subsection (f):

(f) support the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with regard to housing.

These are my preliminary amendments, if you will, that affect the content of the strategy. Their goal is to recognize, in the bill's declaration, that housing is a right, to include rights related to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to strengthen the mandate, the content of the strategy.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would urge the members of this committee to undertake to read the witnesses' testimony from the immigration committee. In fact, witnesses were quite clear—people who work directly with refugees—in outlining the kinds of risks they would be exposed to. In fact, at CIMM, the Liberal members were desperate to ask the witnesses how to fix this and what their proposed fix was, given the fears that were highlighted at the committee. They said explicitly that there was no fix, that you cannot fix this situation, and that the recourse for the government to undertake was in fact to withdraw the proposed legislation hidden in Bill C-97.

The immigration committee also heard witnesses, by the way, from the United States who work particularly with women from the Americas. They talked about the violence and severe risks they and their children face. They urged the government to take action in this regard and said very clearly that this legislation would not address the concerns that people had brought forward.

There's the idea that somehow there's going to be a hearing incorporated into this. How this hearing will be dealt with and in what format is not explained anywhere. There's another issue which is critical, and you would think the government would want to move forward on this, which is to address a recent report by the Auditor General which talks about the ineffectiveness of the government's operation, the duplication of effort and the waste of taxpayers' money in this effort.

What are we doing here? We're talking about setting up a parallel system, supposedly, although the legislation doesn't say that. We have no idea what the system is other than that there would be some sort of hearing. I suspect that all the government is trying to do is to say, “Look, it's all going to be okay. There's going to be a hearing, and by the way, we're not infringing on the Supreme Court decision in Singh v. Canada because there will be a hearing.”

On the issue around taxpayers' resources, what on earth is the government thinking by setting up another process, duplicating the process, even if you pretend for a minute that the process is going to be exactly the same as the IRB, that people would not be at risk, and they would be entitled to all the due processes they would require? What on earth is the government doing setting up another process? They'll have to set up the same kind of infrastructure, hire and train the same kind of people to do the same work when you already have the infrastructure in place. It makes zero sense whatsoever.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee members for indulging me.

I'm speaking to the amendment. In fact, I'm speaking to the entire section pertaining to the asylum seeker changes proposed under Bill C-97. The New Democrats feel very strongly that we should not be supporting these provisions and that these provisions should be struck from this bill.

At the immigration committee, all the witnesses were very clear in saying that the government should not be proceeding with this measure. We've received over 2,000 emails from Canadians calling on the government to stand down these provisions. This amendment, Mr. Chair, does not fix the problem. Witnesses were clear to say there is no fix to this.

Effectively, the government is proceeding to endanger the lives of asylum seekers. We had expert witness upon expert witness who came forward to state that. Amnesty International was very clear to say that there is no fix. The Canadian refugee lawyers' association also said there is no fix.

As far as creating a hearing goes, according to the amendment there is not even a requirement for an oral hearing, so what was being suggested by way of an explanation is not accurate in that regard.

The idea that creating hearings would somehow fix this problem is erroneous at best, Mr. Chair. As we know, the IRB already exists; there's already an independent process, a well-respected process. The witnesses said that this process is the proper process asylum seekers should go through to determine whether or not they are eligible to be a refugee and are able to seek asylum here in Canada.

Setting up a separate set of hearings with some other entity that is not prescribed in the legislation would be duplicating our efforts. Frankly, we just had an Auditor General's report that said that the government is inefficient in its work, that it is duplicating its effort and not achieving the results we hope to achieve, so why are we creating a separate process that asylum seekers would have to go through, while also costing taxpayers money? Why are we setting up a new infrastructure to do this work? The IRB is already very capable of doing this work.

The attempt to somehow say we can fix this draconian piece of legislation by saying we're going to require hearings is deficient.

Mr. Chair, you're aware from the NDP members on the immigration committee that I sent a letter to you, Mr. Chair, to be shared with all the committee members, urging committee members to strike down these provisions. At the very minimum, Mr. Chair, these provisions ought to be a stand-alone bill for full debate in the House of Commons. We heard witnesses throughout the process calling for the government to strike down these provisions and withdraw them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. It's your choice.

Clause 302 of Bill C-97 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The amendment CPC-13 seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations are not being amended by Bill C-97, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

It is inadmissible, so shall clause 302 carry on a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. I'll explain it all.

Clause 301 of Bill C-97 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Amendment CPC-12 seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, not the act.

As House and Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771,

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations are not being amended by Bill C-97, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

Shall clause 301 carry?

You want a recorded vote.

(Clause 301 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 302)

On clause 302, we have amendment CPC-13.

Tom, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's open for discussion.

For your information, we had farmed out this section of the budget implementation act to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. They reported back. They basically said that they recommend that the Standing Committee on Finance consider amending division 10 of Bill C-97 with four recommendations. I think that letter went out to all members.

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll reconvene.

As everyone knows, we're dealing with the budget implementation act, or Bill C-97, and witnesses related to that subject.

Welcome to the witnesses. I believe we have six separate presentations on this panel, so if you could, please hold your presentations to about five minutes.

We'll start with the Canadian Construction Association. Mary Van Buren is the president.

Welcome, Mary.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm moving this to say that perhaps this should come from the clerk's office and be sent to the finance committee so that they have this information and all the finance committee members would be aware of it.

We're in the public session, so I'm not talking about the letter, Mr. Chair, because that would be in violation of the rules to talk about the letter in a public session. What I'm talking about is that the documents we received from the public on this topic would be shared with the finance committee to clearly indicate that our committee has received 2,280 emails pertaining to the changes to Bill C-97 on the asylum determination process, indicating their call for the government to reject these amendments.

In my view, Mr. Chair, that should be a communication from the clerk's office to the finance committee on our behalf.

[Andrew Booth, Chief Commercial Officer, STEMCELL Technologies]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Andrew Booth and I'm the chief commercial officer at STEMCELL Technologies. I appreciate the invitation to address you here today.

STEMCELL is Canada's largest biotech company. We have over 1,400 employees worldwide, with over 1,000 in our headquarters in Vancouver. Our catalogue of over 3,000 products is used by research scientists, universities and pharmaceutical companies around the world, enabling life sciences research.

Business has been good. Fiscal 2018 revenues were approximately $200 million and we hired over 350 people. We're on track to increase revenues another 25% in this fiscal year. We added over 125 employees in the last quarter alone. We have 90 open positions today and a plan to hire over 3,000 more people in the coming 10 years. We're a proudly diverse, proudly high tech and also proudly Canadian company.

In short, when the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Navdeep Bains, talks about building Canadian anchor companies, he's talking about companies like ours. Indeed, Minister Bains has visited our facility in Vancouver, as have Minister Champagne, Minister Sajjan, MPs Terry Beech and Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, as well as MPs Michael Chong and Erin O'Toole. I believe all would agree that STEMCELL is a role model Canadian company that is succeeding globally.

We are, in large part, believers of the government's innovation agenda. That said, there are still disconnects between the stated goals and the means taken to achieve them. Bill C-97 is a case in point. Specifically, we would like to bring your attention to the changes that the bill recommends to the scientific research and economic development tax credits, or SR and ED. We believe it was an excellent decision to remove the so-called profit cap on the enhanced SR and ED credits and associated refundable portion of the SR and ED system. It should help self-funded companies grow without undue investor pressure to exit at an early stage. This may, in turn, result in fewer companies moving intellectual property and corporate headquarters outside of Canada.

Unfortunately, the government has missed an opportunity in failing to also address SR and ED's taxable capital measurement. It is our view that this was a mistake. The taxable capital measurement reflects a “small is beautiful” approach to innovation, which does not align well with the government's stated goals to grow and keep world-leading tech firms here in Canada. It also tilts the playing field away from companies that have larger capital investments in things like manufacturing, infrastructure and test equipment. These companies are inherently stickier and more likely to endure in Canada over time.

We would propose replacing the taxable capital cap with a sliding scale where a 1% enhanced SR and ED credit is granted to companies that reinvest half a per cent of their gross revenues into SR and ED-eligible research and development. This enhanced credit would be capped at a maximum of 20% above the base rate for those companies that invest 10% of revenues or more into R and D.

As small and medium-sized enterprises generally reinvest higher proportions of available revenues in R and D, the government could continue to encourage the start-up community without reducing incentives for larger firms, which continue to invest and grow into anchor companies. At STEMCELL alone, we would estimate that this change would result in the immediate hiring of 20 to 25 research scientists.

By making slight adjustments to the technical nuts and bolts of the policy, the federal government can better support Canadian tech companies of all sizes. This will help develop and maintain not only economic value and jobs in this country, but also the sort of intellectual property portfolios that will be the true engines of the economy in the 21st century.

Once again, I thank you for your time and I look forward to taking any questions.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to check with the clerk's office through you, Mr. Chair. I've received 2,280 emails from the Canadian public with respect to Bill C-97 on the changes to the Immigration refugee asylum processing system. I believe this letter was sent to all of us at committee. As the vice-chair of the committee, I received them.

I just wanted to make sure that these documents are in fact a part of the reporting out in our process here and on the public record. We should also ensure that the finance committee is advised of this information. I just want to make sure that this in fact is a process that we would follow.

[Kevin Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Home Builders' Association]

Thank you, Chair.

CHBA represents some 9,000 member companies from coast to coast and is the national voice of the residential construction sector.

BILD Alberta is the constituent association of CHBA, and as Carmen has spoken to the specifics of Alberta, I'll speak to the housing issues on a national basis that are found in Bill C-97.

From a guiding principles level, CHBA has one key amendment to recommend to the committee regarding the bill. Our recommendation relates directly to the issue of housing affordability, a top-of-mind issue for Canadians from coast to coast.

As all of you know, an ability to access home ownership affects constituents in all of your respective ridings, especially young and new Canadians who aspire to realize the dream of home ownership. Deteriorating market rate affordability also has severe impacts on housing initiatives for those in core housing need.

We therefore propose that the second paragraph of the preamble of the national housing strategy act be amended from the current wording, which reads, “Whereas access to affordable housing contributes to achieving beneficial social, economic, health and environmental outcomes”, and be adjusted to capture the full housing continuum, including market rate housing, as follows: “Whereas both housing affordability and access to affordable housing by those in need contributes to achieving beneficial social, economic, health and environmental outcomes”.

We feel that this amendment would better capture the true housing challenges facing Canadians, preventing a focus solely on social housing and instead also including addressing housing affordability for those seeking to join the middle class and home ownership.

Indeed, without addressing housing affordability, Canada's social housing challenges will get worse. The inability of renters to access home ownership is clogging up the housing continuum, limiting rental unit availability, driving up rents and causing more challenges for those in housing need as well as those organizations seeking to provide it.

For the national housing strategy to be complete, it must also address market-rate housing affordability, especially for first-time buyers. This is particularly true, given the affordability challenges now facing millennials and new Canadians. The strategy and government actions should address the issues driving up costs; smart mortgage rules that address risks, without locking too many Canadians that have home ownership; market rate housing supply; transit-oriented development and more.

Regarding smart mortgage rules, CHBA advises that the compounding effect of many more mortgage rule changes have now gone too far. We are seeing those effects in job losses, weakening economies and the financial challenges now facing millennials.

The proposed first-time homebuyer incentive is a potentially effective measure to expand both affordability and market accessibility for some, particularly those stuck perpetually in rental markets. CHBA has provided CMHC with our initial design recommendations accordingly.

The problem is that this incentive will not be in place until the fall at the earliest, leaving many markets with severe challenges this construction season, including having some buyers delay their purchases until the incentive is available. As well, even once in place, the incentive will still leave thousands of prospective and well-qualified first-time buyers on the sidelines because of the excessively stringent mortgage rules still in place, the impacts of which remain to play out.

We therefore continue to recommend two key additional steps to unlock the door to home ownership right now: adjust the stress test to reflect current economic conditions and restore 30-year amortization on insured mortgages for well-qualified first-time buyers seeking entry-level homes.

The stress test has excessively suppressed the market. Between it and rising interest rates, CHBA estimates that 147,000 potential buyers have been knocked out of the market since it was introduced.

As well, while some suggest the impact of the stress test is now fading, our data tells us differently. The Bank of Canada's most recent forecast shows a 0.3% decline in Canada's GDP for 2019 directly associated with housing activity, amounting to a drop of about $6.7 billion. What is worrisome is that this is the fourth downward revision recently by the bank, based on greater than expected declining housing trends that were not anticipated by the bank's model previously. Our data confirms this and points to the continuing slide caused by the compounding mortgage rule changes.

Since the beginning of 2019, we have surveyed members on two occasions on the effects of the stress test. In January, our members reported a 33% drop in first-time homebuyer activity this past year. This drop in buyers has yet to fully play out in terms of housing starts. The second survey in April revealed that some 65% of the 300 CHBA member companies responding have already laid off staff, and 40% expect to lay off more workers in the next few months, this at a time when the government recognizes that we need more, not less, housing supply.

Our recommendations to adjust the stress test and restore 30-year insured mortgages for first-time buyers, which, like the incentive program, could even have an income-to-price ceiling, would get the continuum and industry functioning properly again, without increasing risk excessively.

In short, it's time for the national housing strategy to address not only those in core housing need but the housing aspirations of hundreds of thousands of well-qualified buyers currently locked out of the market. This affects not only their financial prospects but those of local economies and jobs across Canada.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer questions afterwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll call the meeting to order.

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

Welcome to all the witnesses. We have seven on this panel. If you could hold it as tight as possible to five minutes, that would be dandy.

We'll start with Ms. Wyton, from the BILD Alberta Association.

Are you ready to go?

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

We're trying to reassure the public by saying that we'll copy the existing process, when we could simply keep the status quo.

Ms. Biss, I have one question about poverty reduction and another about housing.

Two new pieces of legislation are expected, of course. However, unfortunately, they're totally unambitious. They're a mistake on the part of the minister, especially since, as you said, there was a substantial response to the first poverty reduction bill introduced. Over 500 organizations had written letters recommending improvements, but these letters were totally ignored by the parliamentary secretary. Bill C-97 proposes a copy and paste of the legislation, when we could have responded to the recommendations and improved it.

One recommendation provided by some groups, including the Collectif pour un Québec sans pauvreté last week, was to change the proposed poverty line measure, which is currently the market basket measure. Is that your position as well? If so, for what other measure would you change the market basket measure? If not, would the idea simply be to improve transparency with respect to Statistics Canada's publication of the poverty line, the market basket measure and its composition, and give the agency all the independence needed to establish this measure?

[Dr. Jack Mintz, President's Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is a real smorgasbord of different topics, but I guess that's what you'd expect with an omnibus bill like Bill C-97.

Thank you very much for your invitation to speak about Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions related to the budget. I will specifically comment on the tax provisions.

To begin, a number of measures introduced in the budget are appropriate from the point of view of addressing some specific problem areas of the tax structure, and I won't go into those. Some are initiatives that I want to applaud, particularly the tax credit to assist Canadians with training costs.

In this day and age, with rapidly evolving technologies, some of them disruptive to specific sectors of the labour market, a focus on training is helpful to address. The good thing about a tax credit such as this, or at least some help in some form, which could be a grant instead of a tax credit, is that it nudges people to think about saving for training costs. Of course, it's going to have to be carefully monitored and carefully put into place because there could be a lot of wastage involved with that if one's not careful.

However, what I wish to discuss is the plethora of new credits, accelerated cost reductions and other forms of targeted assistance in this and previous budgets. I have seen that more harm than good is done with a tax system increasingly looking like Swiss cheese. In particular, tax preferences for investments in manufacturing, clean technologies, mineral exploration and the purchase of housing and electric vehicles in this budget, added to past preferences, raise several well-known issues about the effectiveness of these various policies.

First, governments trying to pick winners often end up supporting losers. By favouring some activities over others, the allocation of resources in the economy is distorted, resulting in lower incomes and productivity.

Second, targeted incentives might generate some additional activity, but they also reward activities that were already planned. This undermines the cost effectiveness of the incentive, and in many cases leads to little new activity.

Third, incentives can only be used if the household or business is paying taxes. If taxpayers cannot use the credit, it is often of little value unless the credit is made refundable, enabling the taxpayer to effectively receive a grant. An important question, though, is whether it is better to provide subsidies as grants or refundable tax credits. There's a long discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of grants versus credits.

Fourth, tax credits, accelerated depreciation and other tax preferences push some companies and higher-income individuals into positions whereby they are no longer paying taxes. Taxpayers look to shift their deductions or credits to others through complicated planning procedures. Governments then try to stop so-called loopholes that are caused by their own policies. The tax systems become increasingly unstable with new limitations and minimum taxes introduced to claw back the incentives.

Fifth, targeted incentives to producers also cause great demand for tax-assisted goods and services, blunting the incentives as prices or input costs rise. In other words, the tax incentives might look politically good but basically make the suppliers of the products richer without encouraging the activity they were intended to support.

My favourite example of that was the Quebec tax holiday for a few buildings in Montreal that effectively just led to higher rents in the buildings as opposed to really helping startup businesses. In fact, it led to a lot of angry landlords in other buildings that didn't get the same incentive.

Sixth, someone has to pay for the tax incentives, today's taxpayers or future taxpayers, as a result of higher deficits.

In my careers, I participated in two business tax reforms—the Honourable Michael Wilson's budget in May 1985 and the Right Honourable Paul Martin's business tax reform panel in 1996 and 1997. Both reforms had to deal with a non-competitive tax system in which tax rates became too high, discouraging successful activities. Past policies that led to the introduction of numerous tax incentives undermined the tax system, which eventually led to the only sensible reform of reducing tax rates and removing incentives.

Did the reforms help the economy? I would suggest that has been the case based on various economic studies.

Many of you might have read my critical comments on the adoption of accelerated depreciation in November 2018 and contained in Bill C-97. I believe it was a policy error for the reasons given above. As Philip and I have shown in a recent Canadian Tax Journal article—which I sent to you for members to look at if they wish—the introduction of temporary accelerated depreciation was biased toward machinery investments in certain industries, thereby almost tripling economic distortions.

Bonus depreciation in the U.S., or accelerated depreciation of machinery, has been placed in the United States since 2001 without significant consequence to Canada. A recent study has shown that the policy undermined U.S. growth and, interestingly, increased economic inequality by favouring skilled workers, who benefited most. The same will be true with this budget policy.

Even worse, the accelerated depreciation provisions fail to address the effect of U.S. tax reform that will erode certain business activities and public revenues in Canada. The business tax reform with competitive corporate income tax rates in the United States will attract not just more tangible investment to the United States from Canada but also intangible income and profits. Canada needs a corporate tax reform to protect our tax base and encourage companies to keep profits in Canada. A reduction in corporate income tax rates would also help counter the competitiveness effects of U.S. reform without mucking up our own tax system.

In other words, we should have approached this with a mini-type of corporate tax reform, which by the way, is being pursued by 12 other countries in the world at this point. In fact, Canada sticks out as the only country that responded to U.S. reform with accelerated depreciation. Congratulations, you are unique, at least.

The key point is that we need to get back to the basics of running a good tax system that is efficient, simple and fair. We are straying away from these principles in recent years, which we will regret in the future.

[Leilani Farha, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing, As an Individual]

Good afternoon and thank you.

I am Leilani Farha, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing. I was appointed to this position by the UN Human Rights Council in 2014. In this capacity, my role is to monitor and assess the enjoyment and implementation of the right to housing in countries around the world. I often provide technical assistance to governments with respect to the drafting and implementation of law and policy related to the right to housing. I have done so in Egypt, France, Chile, India, Spain and Ireland, among many other countries and cities.

I thank the committee for providing me with an opportunity to appear before you. My comments today will be brief and will focus on the proposed national housing strategy act. I have been in conversation with Minister Duclos' office, with Parliamentary Secretary Adam Vaughan, as well as with CMHC to some degree as this legislation has taken shape.

Let me tell you a little about my history with this legislation.

In May 2017, I issued a formal communication, called an “allegation letter”, to the Government of Canada expressing my concerns regarding the alarming rates of homelessness in this country, which I note persist today, as well as the lack of a national housing strategy based in human rights. Subsequently, in November 2017, the government responded by introducing its rights-based national housing strategy.

In July 2018, I was compelled to write a follow-up letter to the Government of Canada expressing my concern regarding two matters: first, that while a rights-based national housing strategy had been adopted, the government appeared to be reluctant to recognize the right to housing in legislation; and second, the government appeared to be reluctant to ensure access to effective remedies through which rights holders could hold the government accountable to the obligation to progressively realize the right to housing. I indicated at that time that this would put the Government of Canada at odds with its international human rights obligations.

In April of this year, the government wrote to assure me that my concerns were being addressed through Bill C-97.

Unfortunately, in its current form, Bill C-97 does not fully address my concerns. In my opinion, amendments are required.

The proposed national housing strategy act would make a policy commitment to the progressive realization of the right to housing consistent with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It would create an independent housing advocate supported by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It would establish a national housing council with the explicit inclusion of people with lived experience of homelessness and inadequate housing, and it would commit to ensuring participation of affected communities. These developments are very positive and I commend their inclusion in the NHSA, but more needs to be done if Canada wants to comply with its international human rights obligations and become a model for other governments.

I understand that last week representatives from civil society provided you with an overview of amendments to the act that would be required to bring Canada in compliance with its international human rights obligations. I concur with those submissions and I reiterate them as follows.

First, the NHSA must include a clear articulation that housing is a fundamental human right.

Second, the government's implementation of the progressive realization of the right to housing must be monitored. The housing council could play a role in that regard.

Third, the housing advocate must be able to receive and investigate petitions that identify systemic housing rights issues and make specific recommendations to which the minister, Minister Duclos in this instance, and the future minister, must respond.

Fourth, the legislation must establish a procedure for the housing advocate to refer important systemic housing rights issues to public hearings before a panel, ensuring affected groups have a voice. The panel's recommendations must be considered by the minister.

These proposed amendments are by no means the high-water mark of the right to housing. Other jurisdictions offer more protections and accountability. However, these amendments are creative and responsive to the Canadian context and consistent with Canada's human rights obligations.

There is no reason to be fearful of legislation that embraces Canada's human rights obligations. It is now well understood internationally that alongside climate change, housing is the key issue of our times. The world is experiencing a housing crisis, and Canada is in the thick of it. One need only walk down the streets of Toronto, Vancouver or even Ottawa to know it. It is now well-established that only an approach based in human rights will achieve the housing outcomes I know this government is keen to reach.

I hope that amendments such as those proposed in my submissions and those of others last week will be tabled and adopted by this committee and that I might be able to share Canada's achievement on the world stage.

Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I have a motion here, if I may.

As this is our last scheduled meeting on the BIA, I would like to suggest that the committee send a letter in response to FINA.

As for the committee's perspective, I propose that you, as chair, simply thank the finance committee for the opportunity to look at divisions 11 and 12 of Bill C-97, inform its members of the hearings we had on this matter and advise that the committee as a whole does not have any recommendations or amendments to propose.

I would also like to remind all members that, if they have any amendments, they can submit them directly to FINA before the established deadline of Friday, May 17, 2019.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order again dealing with Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. We have a number of witnesses. We'll start off with Canada Without Poverty, with Ms. Biss, Policy Director and Human Rights Lawyer.

Welcome, Ms. Biss. Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Turning to Bill C-97, we have some amendments proposed by Ms. Block and Mr. Aubin. I suggest we start with the first one, with Ms. Block.

Ms. Block, would you like to speak to your proposed amendment?

[Dennis Prouse]

You referenced that external advisory committee on regulatory competitiveness. I saw that they were appointed and that, in fact, there was an agriculture leader placed on that committee. We thought that was a really positive development.

There has been some good progress. It started with Barton, went to the agri-food economic strategy table, went to the fall economic statement and went to the budget. Of course, now we're going to come up on this little thing called an election, and as parties go out on the campaign trail and as they write their platforms, the one message is this: Please don't forget about regulatory modernization and please don't forget about agriculture growth.

To your point, we're on the precipice of some really positive developments, and I came here to support Bill C-97 because there were some positive developments. However, now there will to be a campaign and I'm hoping that momentum can continue so that we don't have to start all over again once we all land back here in November.

That would be my message.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

I will focus on two aspects of Bill C-97 touching on immigration.

The first, starting at clause 305 of Bill C-97 is the diversion of a subset of refugee claimants from the Immigration and Refugee Board's refugee determination process to a pre-removal risk assessment. This applies to those who have made a refugee claim in one of the Five Eyes countries before coming to Canada, and that country is by and large the United States.

Why is this happening and with what effect? It's important to know that the pre-removal risk assessment is designed to be a supplement to, not a substitute for, a proper refugee determination. A proper refugee determination provides an oral hearing before an independent expert decision-maker. The pre-removal risk assessment is conducted by an employee of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada—someone who is not independent, someone who is not an expert in refugee determination and does not routinely provide oral hearings.

Why would one make this change from a process designed for refugee determination to one that is intended only as a supplement—one that is, for purposes of refugee determination, clearly inferior? Two reasons have been proffered. One is to address the delays, backlog and inefficiencies arising from the growth in the flow of incoming refugee claimants entering the system.

With respect to this problem, legal scholars—me included—and lawmakers, when confronted with a policy challenge, often reach first to law as the solution. The problem of a law is it's a bad law, and if it's a bad law, we'll make a better law. But that's often not the case and it's not the case here. The problem for the Immigration and Refugee Board was the inadequacy of the resources it had to manage an increasing flow of refugee claimants and, candidly, a lack of nimbleness in responding to the challenges of doing its job. These were amply documented in a recent audit report about the refugee determination process.

Having said that, since the data was gathered for that report, the Immigration and Refugee Board has received increased resources from the federal government, to the government's credit, and the IRB itself has developed new and better techniques for managing its workload, so that at present, they have exceeded their performance target for fiscal year 2019. In other words, there was a policy challenge, it was operational and administrative and they're meeting it.

For the government to switch horses in the middle and start to divert claims to another process, I think, is operationally unwise. More importantly, or in addition to that, this new process, or PRRA—pre-removal risk assessment process—is not able at the moment to manage refugee determination. It doesn't do oral hearings. It doesn't have expert decision-makers. There has been no calculation of the additional resources, delays and costs that will be imposed by switching to a different process for that subset of claims. In short, I think it is an inappropriate policy response to an operational or administrative challenge, and one that, indeed, on the evidence, is being addressed under the existing system.

I will move on to another concern about this, or another reason this process has been suggested, which is to somehow respond to the increased movement of so-called irregular border crossers who are coming to make asylum claims in Canada. I have a couple of responses to that.

First, the evidence suggests that very few of those people who are crossing irregularly into Canada have made asylum claims in the United States. So if the goal is to somehow address that population, it isn't going to be addressed by this move.

Second, for this allocation of refugee claimants who have made a claim in the United States the pre-removal risk assessment applies not only to irregular border crossers but to people who cross the border in any way—people who fly into Canada or people who enter to make a refugee claim under one of the exceptional categories of the safe third country agreement, for example, if they already have a relative in Canada. In other words, it doesn't just apply to irregular border crossers.

Finally, there seems to be a misconception that people who are diverted to the pre-removal risk assessment process because they have made a refugee claim in the United States will, if they fail before the PRRA, be removed to the United States. That's not right.

Let me give you an example. Let's say there is somebody from Iran in the United States who entered before the Muslim ban—a student, for example. The situation has become dangerous for her to return to Iran, and she decides, perhaps not unreasonably, that the United States is not a safe place for her to make a refugee claim. Maybe she makes a refugee claim in the United States and changes her mind, or maybe she doesn't make one at all. She comes to Canada. She gets this pre-removal risk assessment, which is an inferior process to a refugee determination process and one that will have a higher risk of false negatives, false refusals. If she is refused under this process, she isn't returned to the United States to complete her refugee claim there. She's returned to Iran.

This process exposes people to a very real risk of refoulement—a return to face persecution—and indeed through an unfair, incomplete, inadequate process.

Why, then, is this being done to people who have made refugee claims elsewhere? If it's under the assumption that they should complete their refugee claim in the place they started, as I pointed out, they aren't going to be returned to the place where they started their refugee claim. They're going to be returned to a place where they may fear persecution. If there is a view that somehow people ought not to make a refugee claim in one of the Five Eyes countries and then come to Canada, I will only refer you to the written submission of Professor Karen Musalo, an expert in U.S. immigration and refugee law.

She testified before the citizenship and immigration parliamentary committee on the question of what kind of asylum process now exists in the United States. She provides ample evidence about the extent to which it is unfair in its process, through things like, for example, the detention of children and the separation of families, and how it is unfair in its content and substance, by, for example, denying protection to women who flee domestic violence from other countries and cannot obtain refugee protection.

There has also been some claim that people who undertake this or who are subjected to this pre-removal risk assessment will in fact get a robust oral hearing and full access to appeal. I would refer you to the actual provisions in this legislation, in this bill, clause 305 and onwards. Nowhere in there does it say that anybody will get an oral hearing. Nowhere does it say that they will get an appeal. These are mere promises that are held out as something that may be done in regulation if this legislation is passed. I would encourage you not to sign a blank cheque on this. There is no oral hearing provided in this legislation. There's no provision for appeal under the present pre-removal risk assessment. There is very rarely occasion for oral hearings. They are generally not given.

In the moment that remains, I will just highlight for you something I will not pursue here, which is another provision in the bill regarding visas. There is a provision here to systematically deny visitor visas and other kinds of visas from countries that Canada considers unwilling to furnish adequate travel documents for purposes of removal of those already in Canada.

Let me cut to the chase on that. What this proposes, for example, is that if a country like China, which often does not issue travel documents readily to people being removed from Canada to China.... Canada decides it's not going to give any more travel documents to Chinese visitors to Canada. You as MPs are going to have an office full of angry constituents who say, “My mother can't visit for a wedding because she's from China, and China isn't delivering travel documents for returning Chinese visitors fast enough.” I'm not sure if you want to confront that situation in your constituency offices, but that's what this legislation will permit and authorize.

With that, I welcome your questions. Thank you very much.

[Michael Hatch, Associate Vice-President, Financial Sector Policy, Canadian Credit Union Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the committee members for giving me the opportunity to speak this morning.

My name is Michael Hatch, as the chairman mentioned, and I am the Associate Vice-President for Financial Sector Policy with the Canadian Credit Union Association. Try saying that five times fast.

We represent 248 credit unions and caisses populaires outside of Quebec. Collectively, our sector contributes $6.5 billion to the Canadian economy. We have 5.8 million members. We employ almost 30,000 Canadians and we manage over $225 billion in assets. In 2018 we donated $62.5 million back to community initiatives and projects across the country, which is a much higher share of our after-tax income than the large banks.

Credit unions are owned by the people who bank with them, as many of you will know and appreciate, and that's what sets us apart. We're the only banking services provider with a physical branch in 395 communities across Canada, many of which are represented around this table today.

Despite our smaller size, we have market share comparable to the big five banks in agricultural and small business lending. We lend to small businesses because we are small business. In the western provinces, for example, credit unions often have between 30% and 50% of the market. In Manitoba, one out of every two consumers banks with a credit union.

The important work we do in our communities is why credit unions have been asking the government to modernize some outdated provisions within the Bank Act, which are obsolete and a barrier to innovation and competition in financial services. We were pleased to see two of our pre-budget recommendations included in budget 2019, back on March 22. These were changes to federal credit union member voting for AGMs, and an elimination of the outdated requirement for federal credit unions to send paper statements to all members each year.

We thank the government for hearing our concerns and for working to address some of our recommendations in budget 2019. However, we were disappointed that only one of these two recommendations was included in Bill C-97. This means that federal credit unions will have to continue sending out inefficient, costly and environmentally unfriendly paper statements to all of their members, including children, preventing the credit unions from returning the savings that electronic notices would provide back to their communities, until at least 2020 and perhaps beyond.

One of our federal credit unions has estimated that this costs it nearly $1 million every year. This money would be much better spent on reinvestment in the credit union or on the community programs that our members support so generously.

While the Bank Act does apply directly to only federal credit unions, it is important to note that modernization of outdated provisions eliminates barriers to entry for credit unions considering going federal, as well as sending an important message to provincial regulators, encouraging them to re-examine their own outdated provisions in their own legislation. Several provinces still have similarly outdated provisions. These recommendations will have an impact not only in the federal sphere but across Canada in increasing competitiveness and innovation within the sector.

With the support of the all-party credit union caucus—of which many members are here this morning—and all parties, credit unions remain hopeful that the Parliament elected in October will follow through with the budget measure on the elimination of the requirement to send paper statements, and our other recommendations to support innovation and competition within the financial services sector.

Ultimately, policy should encourage competition in financial services in Canada. Our financial sector is not noted for its high levels of consumer choice. Credit unions represent the only real alternative to the large banks in Canada. Further, policy-driven concentration in financial services in this country is not in the interests of the consumer or the economy.

Credit unions will continue to advocate for the changes that the government committed to in its budget this year but that did not make it into this bill, regardless of the outcome of the election later this year. The sector appreciates the support of the all-party credit union caucus and asks this committee for its support in ensuring that these changes are implemented at the earliest legislative opportunity.

Thank you very much.

[Dennis Prouse, Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

As Mr. Easter said, I'm Dennis Prouse, vice-president of government affairs for CropLife Canada.

CropLife Canada represents the Canadian manufacturers, developers and distributors of pest control and modern plant-breeding products. Our organization's primary focus is on providing tools to help farmers be more productive and more sustainable. We also develop products for use in urban green spaces, public health settings and transportation corridors.

We are here to speak in support of Bill C-97 due to the fact that it makes an important start down the road of regulatory modernization. As we know from both the advisory council on economic growth report—often known as the Barton report—and the agri-food economic strategy table, Canada must overcome internal regulatory barriers that hinder innovation and competitiveness if it is going to meet the government's target of $75 billion in agri-food exports by 2025.

Bill C-97 takes significant actions to address regulatory modernization. In particular, it makes key amendments to the Pest Control Products Act—PCPA for short—to help alleviate resource pressure on Health Canada's pest management regulatory agency to allow it to focus on work that meaningfully contributes to the agency's mandate.

The current requirement in section 17 of the PCPA requires the Minister of Health to initiate a special review of any pesticide where an OECD country bans all uses of an active ingredient. The language gives no discretion to the minister to determine whether or not a special review is necessary. An active ingredient that is currently under re-evaluation or has just been reviewed in Canada can still be subject to a new special review.

Certain interest groups have learned to exploit the current system, and the onerous special reviews, coupled with the challenges with the current re-evaluation process, are contributing to the PMRA's unsustainable workload. These duplicative efforts only serve to bog down the system and to prevent farmers from having access to the tools that they need to protect their crops and help drive Canada's economy.

Under Bill C-97, the Pest Control Products Act would be amended to give the Minister of Health discretion to move forward with a special review only when it stands to serve the best interests of Canadians. It also allows the minister to consolidate related special reviews, which would fix the tsunami effect that might otherwise result.

We applaud the efforts of Bill C-97 to address regulatory modernization, but it is only one part of a much broader set of improvements that are needed. For instance, we continue to press for critical improvements that can and need to be made to PMRA's re-evaluation process under existing authorities, as these have not yet been addressed.

Similarly, we are seeking formal cabinet-level acknowledgement of the economic role that both PMRA and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency play in facilitating agriculture and agri-food's economic growth. On the CFIA side for instance, the agency has still not yet clarified its regulatory oversight for products of gene editing. Gene editing is poised to transform agriculture around the globe. Despite this, Canada is falling behind some of its global competitors who are acting decisively on creating timely, predictable approaches to regulatory oversight for products of gene editing.

Examples like this are why the government needs to act quickly on the concept articulated in budget 2019 of placing a competitiveness lens on regulatory agencies. Competitiveness does not come at the expense of health and safety, which must always remain at the forefront. What it does mean is that regulators acknowledge and embrace their role in helping to facilitate innovation and competitiveness for Canadian companies, all while maintaining their focus on science-based regulation.

Action is also required for the annual regulatory modernization bill as outlined in budget 2019. The new external advisory committee on regulatory competitiveness will no doubt have some strong content for that bill.

It is encouraging to see momentum building around regulatory modernization that will serve to drive growth in Canadian agriculture and the economy writ large. However, regulatory modernization must be a whole-of-government exercise and must be led by key economic players, namely the Department of Finance and Treasury Board. Regulatory agencies do not reform themselves. They respond only to strong direction and leadership from above. Absent of that, regulatory modernization will slowly lose momentum and collapse. Given the promise held by economic growth in Canadian agriculture and agri-food, that would be a tragic development.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to the questions that the committee might have.

[Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of Parliament. It's a pleasure to be here today to provide our proposal for your consideration and to include in the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-97.

My name is Shannon Coombs and I'm the President of the Canadian Consumer Speciality Products Association. For 21 years, I have proudly represented the many accomplishments of this responsible and proactive industry. Today, I provided a one-pager, “Imagine Life Without Us?”, which illustrates the types of products CCSPA represents. I'm sure you have used many of them today.

CCSPA is a national trade association that represents 35 member companies across Canada, collectively a $20-billion industry employing 12,000 people across 87 facilities. Our companies manufacture, process, package and distribute consumer, industrial and institutional speciality products such as soaps and detergents, domestic pest control products, aerosols, hard surface disinfectants, deodorizers and automotive chemicals, or as I call it, everything under the kitchen sink.

I would also like to thank those MPs around the table who are assisting CCSPA with our social media campaigns on Lyme awareness, tick prevention and hand washing.

Why are we here today? Bill C-97 makes amendments to various pieces legislation. Part 4, division 9 of Bill C-97 includes provisions to support regulatory modernization in Canada. Four of the acts included within the regulatory modernization section impact our members. These pieces of legislation are the Pest Control Products Act, the Weights and Measures Act, the Food and Drugs Act, and the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding those acts. However, our primary focus today is not these but the Hazardous Products Act.

First and foremost, CCSPA applauds the government's commitment to support regulatory modernization in Canada. Minister Morneau's fall economic statement underscored the need for regulatory reform to make it easier for Canadian businesses to grow and remain competitive while still protecting the health and safety of Canadians. Given this commitment, we are here today to request the removal of a costly and unique-to-Canada provision in the Hazardous Products Act via Bill C-97.

The requirement found in paragraph 14.3(1)(a) of the Hazardous Products Act requires suppliers to keep a “true copy” of labels for workplace chemicals housed on a server in Canada for six years. This unique-to-Canada provision was included in the omnibus bill of 2014, when amendments were made to the Hazardous Products Act to allow for the modernization of the hazardous products regulations. As the provision for the “true copy” was included in the legislation, it did not have to go through any costing for companies. In the development of the regulations, it also avoided regulatory costing oversight as it was considered “compliance” and outside the scope of the regulations and the one-for-one rule. To date, no clear policy intent or objectives have been provided to us related to the true copy provision.

The cost for our member companies to comply with the true copy requirement is prohibitive and is realized throughout the entirety of the Canadian supply chain. On average, CCSPA members will have an initial investment for the first year of $4.2 million, $17 million in ongoing investment for each year for human resources, and up to $10 million associated with the Canadian server. If we were to break it down and look at the impact on an individual company, annual costs for one member with four manufacturing sites are estimated at $400,000 to inspect, photograph and catalogue 23,000 receipts of their raw materials annually. The costly process has been captured on the left-hand side of the the document that I provided to the clerk for your reference.

As members can see from the diagram on the right-hand side, costs are not just borne by the manufacturer but upstream by the supplier and downstream by the distributors. Everyone will have to collect and retain the label information already captured on the safety data sheet. The redundancy of collecting this information at multiple points in the supply chain is an unnecessary burden and one without a clearly defined benefit.

As mentioned earlier in my remarks, regulatory modernization must work together for the “health and safety of Canadians” policy objective. The removal of the true copy provision within the HPA does not diminish the protection of Canadian workers. Industry is obligated to provide safety data sheets for all hazardous materials and chemicals used in the workplace. Under the Hazardous Products Act, suppliers are required to retain a copy of all safety data sheets for six years. This requirement is aligned with the United States and the EU requirement for safety data sheet retention. We are the outlier with respect to this unique label data collection.

The role of a safety data sheet is such that employers are obligated to train workers on hazardous chemicals that they work with and to ensure that workers read and understand the safety data sheets before they begin handling the products. This helps to ensure that their workers are protected when they use those products. The safety data sheet, which contains all of the important information on how to use that product, is the most comprehensive document that can be used to train workers on the hazards and precautions specific to that product. As members can see from the copy of the SDS that the clerk has shared with you, it is the most comprehensive piece of information. The label is a limited restatement of those hazards and precautions that already appear on the SDS.

CCSPA has been and remains committed to working with this government to support an efficient and effective regulatory climate for businesses so that we can be competitive at home and abroad. We believe that the issues, as outlined, support our collective goal of meaningful regulatory change as per the government's regulatory reform agenda.

For companies who wish to be competitive in North America, this unusual paper burden, unique to Canada, is a disincentive to innovation and keeping businesses here. We respectfully request that the finance committee help us to remove this unique legislative burden and deliver against the government's regulatory reform agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Clayton Achen, Managing Partner, Achen Henderson LLP]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for allowing my voice to be heard in this committee. I am truly honoured and humbled to be here with you all today.

My name is Clayton Achen. I'm a founding partner at Achen Henderson CPAs in Calgary. Given my practice area, my primary interest with respect to Bill C-97 is tax—specifically the taxation of private companies and small businesses and their owners. I'm primarily interested in what's missing from Bill C-97.

My firm's day-to-day work as a chartered professional accounting firm is to work directly with middle-class small business families. This has given us better perspective than most to see how hard it is for entrepreneurs to earn a living. We also see how easy it has become for our government to take those hard-earned dollars away, sometimes under the guise of fairness, which is a clever word that does nothing to consider the risks and ultimate hardships that an entrepreneur endures.

I'll spend a few minutes talking about some of their more recent challenges, including economic challenges, increases to tax, increased compliance burdens and uncertainty, and challenges in dealing with the CRA and navigating our tax system. I'll then make some brief comments on Canada's desperate need for a modern tax system and close with my thoughts on a few business-related items that are contained in Bill C-97.

It cannot be understated how complicated our tax system has become in the last 50 years, which was the last time that a comprehensive review was undertaken. Our last three budgets have heaped more and more layers of complication and burdens of compliance onto Canadian small businesses. While I am grateful that the attack on private corporations and their shareholders appears to have subsided in 2019, I am disappointed that the bill contains nearly nothing to help them.

What we've seen, particularly in my home province of Alberta, is that entrepreneurs have faced tremendous adversity in the last five years and particularly in the last three and a half.

In Alberta, some small businesses have managed to survive a long and sustained economic downturn with very little help from our governments. A lot have simply closed their doors and are out of work.

For all Canadian small businesses, the cost of compliance has increased dramatically as a result of changes to the inter-corporate dividend rules, tax on split income, the specified corporate income and association rules, changes to family trust reporting and new penalties for saving too much in your business regardless of the reason.

Many wealthier clients have increased their risk tolerance with regard to tax planning strategies and reduced their tolerance for economic risks. Many wealthier clients are shifting their wealth out of Canada.

Most of this is a direct side effect of the offensive and ill-conceived attempt at tax reform for private corporations and their shareholders that was announced on July 18, 2017. Moreover, all companies, including small businesses, are now shouldering significant CPP increases for the next seven years.

According to research conducted by the CFIB, Canadian small businesses are now being asked to shoulder nearly half of the federal carbon tax take, which increases the cost of everything—and I mean everything—while receiving disproportionately small rebates.

In many cases, small businesses have tried to pass these costs on to consumers in order to remain viable. In many cases, they simply can't. This results in corporate inequity, meaning smaller companies are simply unable to compete with larger corporations and multinationals who are better positioned or better equipped to shoulder these additional tax and compliance burdens.

I share these insights with you today not to complain, but rather to highlight that there have been real, rapid and sustained challenges for middle-class small businesses owners across Canada and Bill C-97 offers very little in the way of assistance or stimulus.

The next issue is the CRA's service levels. I can confirm the substance of the 2017 Auditor General's report, which says it is very difficult to reach the CRA by phone and even more difficult to get a complete and correct answer. We still deal with this daily. At Achen Henderson, we have been forced to add this to our service levels and have elected to do so at no additional cost to our clients.

While I'm thankful for my newfound love of chamber music and encouraged that the government recognizes the problem, we must ask ourselves if the measures in Bill C-97 are the correct approach. While advances have been made by the CRA to be more accessible and user-friendly online, it confuses us that the CRA requires five times the staff per capita to administer our tax system than the IRS does, with more hiring announced in the 2019 federal budget.

Based on our extensive experience in dealing with the CRA and helping many organizations who have experienced similar challenges, we've come to believe that the CRA's issues are cultural in nature. Defective cultures always result in operational bottlenecks. These bottlenecks are magnified by a tax system that is far too complicated for the average CRA agent or taxpayer to navigate, which is further magnified by a lack of or inadequate professional training, in our opinion.

Next, instead of taking steps toward modernizing our tax system to make it more transparent, competitive and easy to comply with and administer, Bill C-97 is a continuation by our government of using taxation to pick winners with tax breaks in various economic areas and industries. Furthermore, C-97 does nearly nothing to address tax competitiveness with the United States. Instead, the bill stretches the fabric of our tax act even further, mending holes where the fabric breaks with more patches, resulting in legislation that is impossible to comply with and administer.

lt's not all bad. There are some welcome patches in the bill, such as the improvements to the RDSP rules and the specified corporate income rules, but I can't help but wonder how many more holes will need to be patched until we consider modernizing our tax system.

The patch to the SR and ED program is a step in the right direction. lt undoubtedly makes the program more accessible to certain CCPCs. For them, this should help to tip the balance between compliance costs versus benefits and increased support. Unfortunately, these changes do not address the administration issues in the SR and ED program, and they only impact a very small portion of private companies in Canada.

While the accelerated investment incentive will be helpful to some private companies—namely those who are doing well and/or those who are able to expand or upgrade—the full expensing of M and P equipment, clean energy equipment and electric vehicles seems like boutique benefits that will only help certain private companies. We are disappointed that the accelerated CCA measures are temporary in nature.

ln closing, entrepreneurs have endured a lot these last few years. Many continue to struggle with uncertainty and excessive tax complexity, and have received very little from their government in return. While C-97 doesn't ask them to shoulder much more, it doesn't offer much in the way of assistance or stimulus.

We've seen improvements in the CRA's online offerings, but we have experienced very little improvement in hold times or service levels, and we question if Bill C-97's approach to resolving these problems is the correct one. Bill C-97 is a missed opportunity to initiate a comprehensive review of our tax system with the goals of modernization and simplification at its core.

Lastly, the accelerated CCA measures in C-97 are targeted at specific industries and temporary in nature, and we think they miss the mark on tax competitiveness with the United States.

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak today. I'd be happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I will call the meeting to order. For the record, we're dealing with the order of reference of Tuesday, April 30 on Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019, and other measures.

We have five groups in the first panel and we have Ms. Macklin joining us by video conference.

We will start with Mr. Achen, with Achen Henderson LLP. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Pamela D. Palmater, Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual]

Hello. Thanks for having me.

Kwe, ni'n teluisi Pam Palmater.

I am from the sovereign Mi'kmaq nation on unceded Mi'kmaq territory. I have been a practising lawyer for 20 years, 10 of which were spent at Justice Canada and Indian Affairs, where I received all the training in the legislative process, statutory interpretation and legislative drafting. I also have my doctorate in law on legislation that impacts indigenous people, so I have a very particular focus here, and it's very legislative, as opposed to policy-based.

I'm here to speak against Bill C-92 as it is currently drafted. I think that without substantive amendments it risks interjurisdictional chaos, legal chaos and chaos on and off reserve. In addition, of course, it won't do anything to address the humanitarian crisis.

I have several core problems with it. One is the same problem I have with Bill C-91 and Bill C-97, which is that they are pan-aboriginal legislation. By being pan-aboriginal, in fact, it discriminates against first nations because it doesn't focus on first nations' specific rights, our unique histories, our unique socio-economic conditions or our specific interests. To my mind, first nation rights should never be limited by the different legal, political and social statuses of other groups.

For example, the Métis do not suffer the same acute socio-economic conditions that first nations do. That's just a fact. We also know that in Canadian law, when you treat everyone formally the same, you end up treating the most disadvantaged unequally. What we're advocating is substantive equality that is first nations-specific, so first nations-specific legislation and not formal equality.

The other concern is that there is no independent recognition or status for first nations laws that make them paramount. They are only considered to be a federal law, no different from a bylaw under the Indian Act. For anyone who has ever worked with first nations or at Justice Canada or Indian Affairs, it is nearly impossible to get the RCMP or anyone else to enforce Indian Act bylaws.

Right now, under this legislation, instead of being paramount, first nation laws are conditional or subject to the provisions of the Charter; the Canadian Human Rights Act; section 35 of the Constitution Act; all of the limiting Supreme Court of Canada cases; the division of powers under section 91(24); coordination agreements and all of the interpretations that courts would give to those coordination agreements—of which there could be upwards of 634—and failure to abide; pre-existing provincial court definitions of “best interests of the child”, which I have to remind everyone here are court-defined and open to the same amount of racism and abuse that's already been shown in the courts against first nations children; and, of course, clauses 10 to 15 of Bill C-92 itself.

Those are a lot of things that trump first nations laws, and that's a problem. There has to be a discussion that is not only about recognizing first nations jurisdiction in and of itself but also about issues around paramountcy of laws and how these jurisdictions will work together.

My other concern is that it forces first nations to negotiate agreements with federal and provincial government, when provincial governments are the problem. The federal government is the problem in the sense of discriminatory, chronic underfunding. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already talked about that. However, it's the provinces that have allowed these human rights abuses to continue despite the research and despite all of the evidence. The last people many first nations want to work with are the provinces, which commit the abuses. To actually force that is to reinforce this horrendous humanitarian crisis, and that is something that I think many first nations have already testified to being rightly against.

The biggest thing, I guess, is that despite being sold as committing funding to first nations, there's no statutory commitment for funding. It is one thing to acknowledge in a “whereas” clause that there are calls for funding, that in principle maybe we'll talk about funding or we'll figure out ways to talk about it. However, there is no statutory commitment saying the minister will fund first nations for all of the services and actually define what those services are—and leave it flexible enough.

There are no guidelines around how that funding would be provided such as population, demographics, birth rates, actual costs, first nations rights around this, which are very different from Métis and Inuit rights. There's nothing that makes Jordan's principle mandatory in this legislation, and that should, in fact, be a core part of the legislation. It's certainly a core part of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. There's no commitment to address the underlying root causes of child apprehension, which for first nations specifically tend to mostly be socio-economic conditions. It's not just good enough to fund aftercare or parental programs if you're not also saying we will also make a commitment to housing, food, water, education and access to health care, which are all the reasons why most of these kids are taken away to begin with.

Another core legislative problem is that the minister retains all of the powers under the act, including the power to make regulations. There's only a requirement to consult with indigenous groups, and we all know how poorly consultation works in practice. We've been subject to hundreds of court cases because the federal government still doesn't understand how to actually consult, accommodate and get consent, because all of those things work together as a package. Now with UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we're talking about free, prior and informed consent. This bill is the opposite of that. It's basically saying we'll talk to you but we get to do all of the regulations, and it's in the regulations where a lot more damage can be done, a lot more control can be had. Or there can be no regulations at all, because we've seen ministers promise, “we're just going to do this act and we'll solve all the problems in regulations” and, hello, no regulations. We're just going on past practice.

The global pan-indigenous consultations also skew what should be in the regulations. What is good for first nations may have nothing to do with Métis, so why would Métis have a voice in what kind of regulations will apply to first nations and vice versa? That's part of the legal problem with the pan-indigenous nature. By empowering one entity, that is, by empowering the minister throughout all of the sections of this legislation, you are in essence disempowering another. Whatever power the minister has, that's something that first nations don't have, and that's a real problem.

I do find it really disturbing that in all of this legislation, knowing how closely related forced and coerced sterilization is to child apprehensions and how they've been linked, there is no provision in here that specifically prohibits the use of forced or coerced sterilizations in any child and family services situation, especially with regard to child care

There are lots of other issue around wording. There should be a discussion about jurisdiction over off-reserve, issues around data collection, but my specific suggested amendments are that if you're going to do legislation for those first nations that consent, it needs to be specific first nations legislation whether you're talking about languages or child and family services. Only first nations are under the Indian Act. First nations have an entirely different set of rights and laws, and you cannot put them all together.

There needs to be, if there is legislation, fully funded opt-out provisions so that first nations that are already engaged with child and family services don't have to be a part of this legislation, that their choice isn't just status quo or nothing, that a fully funded alternative means if we're not funding you under this process, we will fund you under your own process.

There needs to be targeted and committed funding specifically for first nations that is based on population, inflation, costs and needs. The first nations inherent right to be self-determining over child and family services must be recognized in their own right, not attached to section 35, not attached to UNDRIP, not attached to anything external. The inherent pre-existing right needs to be the foundation of any legislation going forward.

I would also add that if you want to give real effect to this, repeal section 88 of the Indian Act to oust provincial jurisdiction over first nations altogether.

My last recommendations specifically reference UNDRIP and all of the provisions, and specifically reference the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and say that this bill should not pass as is. It needs at a minimum comprehensive review with first nations experts, including people like Dr. Cindy Blackstock, who has extensive amendments to make, and organizations like the National Association of Friendship Centres.

Thank you.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have another couple of questions.

Both of you referred in your presentations to the work you're doing to co-develop; I hope I got that correctly. We're hearing in terms of different pieces of legislation—and, of course, most obviously Bill C-92—that a lot of people and organizations are not feeling that this is the correct way to describe the interaction and that it was certainly not co-development. We have heard that repeatedly.

I am just wondering what your mandate is around co-development. How is that progressing through time?

We know that on Bill C-97 we've heard from the AFN that there are concerns around jurisdiction. We've heard from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs that there has not been a meaningful consultation. There seems to be a lot of interest in making sure that consultation is actually defined as something a little more concrete and not interpreted by the government.

I think co-development is the way that the language is moving, but is the actual action behind it happening? How, in both of these departments, are you accountable to indigenous communities across the country in terms of developing the definitions of co-development and consultation?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I will note that Bill C-97 sounds innocuous enough; and part 4, division 25, sounds as though it's just a little piece. Division 25 is 33 pages.

Therefore, first of all, I would like to make a motion that we invite the Métis National Council, the ITK and the AFN, and I know our time is short, but that we ask them to make comment and to submit their comments to this committee for consideration.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also want to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today. I would like to recognize that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I'd like to follow my colleague the deputy minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada's remarks by addressing the impact of the bill on my department.

I will be very short, but I'm just coming back on some elements.

Through Division 25 of Bill C-97, the dissolution of Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the federal government is establishing two departments that will be better equipped to work with indigenous partners. This is an important turning point in the relationship between indigenous peoples and Canada.

The mandate of the Department of Indigenous Services is to work collaboratively with partners to improve access to high-quality services for indigenous people. Its vision is to support and empower indigenous peoples to independently deliver services and address socio-economic conditions in their communities as they move forward on the path of self-determination.

The Minister of Indigenous Services is continuing the important work of improving the quality of services delivered to first nations, Inuit and Métis. This includes ensuring a consistent, high-quality and distinctions-based approach to the delivery of those services. A rigorous results and delivery approach is being adopted, focused on improving outcomes for indigenous people. Over time, one fundamental measure of success would be that the appropriate programs and services be increasingly delivered by indigenous people for indigenous people.

Madam Chair, transformation is about changing how we work, and that's basically what we're trying to do. We are changing how we listen and how we partner in a way that enables us to properly support the rights and self-determination of indigenous peoples.

I want to thank the committee members for their attention.

We'll be welcoming you questions.

[Daniel Watson, Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be before the committee today. Just as you have acknowledged, we too acknowledge that we're on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I'm pleased to be joined today by the deputy minister of Indigenous Services Canada. We'll both be speaking about Division 25 of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

The Government of Canada is renewing its relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

A vital component of this renewed relationship is Canada's commitment to take action to dismantle the colonial structures of the past. On August 28, 2017, the Prime Minister announced the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and the creation of two new departments. These departments are Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada.

We need to begin building a truly renewed relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis. Division 25 of Bill C-97, the budget implementation act of 2019, is a key step in the ongoing process of reconciliation. It builds on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples from 1996:

...the enactment of companion legislation by the Parliament of Canada legislation to create the new laws and institutions needed to implement the renewed relationship. Their combined purpose is to provide the authority and tools for Aboriginal people to structure their own political, social and economic future.

More than 20 years ago, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples called for this move to improve the delivery of services for indigenous peoples and to accelerate the movement towards self-determination. Quite simply, two departments will better serve the distinct needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Furthermore, the creation of two departments follows the direction of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and article 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ensuring the advancement of self-determination.

Division 25 would enact two statutes to establish the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and the Department of Indigenous Services. These statutes define the powers, duties and functions of respective ministers, as well as repeal the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act in order to formally dissolve Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada.

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada will accelerate the work already begun to renew the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. Equally as important, the department will continue to promote the self-reliance, prosperity and well-being of the residents and communities of the north. It will continue to work to create first nations, Inuit, and Métis institutions to build the capacity needed to support the implementation of their vision of self-determination.

The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations guides the government's forward-looking and transformative work to create a new relationship with indigenous peoples. The minister has been tasked by the Prime Minister with better whole-of-government coordination, and the acceleration of self-government and self-determination agreements based on new policies, laws and operational practices.

As the needs of the north and northerners are distinct from those in the south, this bill would provide a basis in statute to establish the position of minister of northern affairs. The minister of northern affairs would guide the government's work in the north, including a new Arctic policy for Canada. In collaboration with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the minister of northern affairs would continue to advance work on a shared Arctic leadership model and support northern programming, governing institutions and scientific initiatives.

This proposed legislative initiative is an important step in the process of eliminating colonial structures. It would establish a new legislative basis that will better allow for collaboration and co-operation in assisting indigenous peoples in defining their vision of self-determination.

I want to thank the committee members for their attention.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, Mr. Mohammed, I want to thank you for your testimony. It allows us to put a face to the asylum seekers who will be dealing with the potential effects of the bill we have before us.

Regarding your story and the difficult situation you experienced, I would like to ask you the following question.

Do you think Canada would have sent you back to the United States if Bill C-97 had been in effect when you came to Canada to request asylum?

[Seidu Mohammed, Refugee Claimant, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Seidu Mohammed and I have come here from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to speak to you today.

I would like to acknowledge that the land on which we are gathered here today in Ottawa is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

I know that as a newcomer to Canada, what I am about to say today may not make everyone on this committee happy, but I feel that the heavy burden on my soul will be lifted a little if I could respectfully share my views before this honourable committee.

I would like to begin by quoting the words of a great Canadian, His Excellency the Right Honourable Vincent Massey. He spoke these words at the Canadian citizenship ceremony that was held in Winnipeg on May 20, 1955. At that time he was the first Canadian-born Governor General of Canada.

In his address to the new Canadians, His Excellency said:

What are we doing with the spirit of debate and free speech? May I tell you of an incident that happened not long ago in a Canadian city? A new-comer to this country, an educated man, who had learned the value of freedom the hard way, came here to find it. He complained, not bitterly, but sadly, that when he ventured to speak critically of any institution or practice in Canada that he could not approve, he was rebuked; “You don't need to criticize,” he was told, “you are lucky to be here at all!”

This cannot really be our view of honest criticism. We offer new-comers something more than a refuge. When we welcome new citizens, we are accepting free men and women and we invite, and urge, them to join us in using the privileges and responsibilities of free speech.

Members of the committee, and ladies and gentlemen, before coming here today I had a meeting with Mr. Bashir Khan, a well-known Winnipeg immigration and refugee lawyer. I asked him to explain to me what Bill C-97 would mean for a refugee claimant. I was shocked, saddened and very much disturbed at what he told me. I was so outraged that I could not sleep that whole night.

There are unjust laws as there are unjust men. What Bill C-97 proposes today is unjust. It is trying to amend the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The change that really bothers me is that, if this bill becomes law, if I had to come to Canada, it makes a person like me ineligible to make a refugee claim. This would have prevented me from having my claim heard by an independent decision-maker at a hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

This proposed law means that many refugee claimants like I once was, who may need Canada's protection because they face persecution or a risk of torture or death in their countries of citizenship, will be denied access to Canada's refugee determination system.

However, under the new proposed law, a person like me would have access to only a pre-removal risk assessment application, which is a process that provides much less fairness than a hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Mr. Khan also told me that Legal Aid Manitoba would pay only a maximum of $530 for a pre-removal risk assessment application to a lawyer, which takes between 10 and 15 hours to complete properly. This would create a serious funding problem as it would reduce the number of lawyers who would be willing and available to take on pre-removal risk assessment applications. This would end up hurting those who are most vulnerable and in need of Canada's protection.

What I would like you to please remember about me long after I have gone back home to Winnipeg is that the people of Canada saved my life from death by lynching by homophobic mobs in Ghana, and protected me from imprisonment by the Ghanaian police because of my sexual orientation. The Canadian people did this by giving me the right and privilege to have my refugee claim heard by the independent and impartial Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Before coming to Canada I went to the United States, thinking it was a country that protected and kept refugees safe. I was wrong. I was jailed in detention for nine months, with murderers, drug dealers and people who committed felonies. In detention, I was not provided a lawyer for my bond hearing, nor for my asylum hearing at the United States immigration court.

After I was released from detention, I was required to report every two weeks to an immigration and customs enforcement officer, who harassed me for documents and constantly threatened me with deportation. I felt very afraid because at that time the U.S. was deporting people.

Like many other refugees, I fled from the U.S., where I was not safe, to Canada where I would be safe. On December 24, 2016 I walked for 10 hours in the cold, across the border near Emerson, Manitoba. On that fateful night I suffered severe frostbite, which resulted in losing all of my fingers.

In closing, I ask you this question for self-reflection: Would the Canadian Parliament really want to pass a law that would deny me access to the Canadian justice system, and certainly others like me who are coming to Canada for protection? Would you want to see me deported back to Ghana?

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

[Prof. Kevin Milligan]

Great.

Thank you for your invitation.

My name is Kevin Milligan, and I am a Professor of Economics at the University of British Columbia, here in Vancouver.

I will direct my remarks to the changes to the guaranteed income supplement that are proposed in Bill C-97.

The GIS was introduced in 1967, and has grown into a vital part of Canada's retirement income security system for seniors. The GIS is focused on low-income seniors, with over two million seniors now receiving the benefit. That's about one third of all seniors in Canada. The GIS is vital to poverty alleviation among seniors. Some people arrive at retirement with too little income. Maybe they had unemployment or a health problem that made it difficult to save when they were younger. Others start retirement on a firm footing but end up outliving their savings and risk falling into poverty at older ages. In both these cases, the GIS tops up the income of these low-income seniors and allows them to have a dignified retirement.

A challenge with the GIS arises from how it is phased out with income. As someone earns more income, the GIS is reduced at rates of 50¢ to 75¢ on the dollar. If you earn one more dollar, you lose 50¢ or 75¢ off your GIS. For low-income seniors who want to work past age 65, these phase-out rates impose a very high effective tax rate on earned income.

Now, many seniors are actually pretty happy to retire from the workplace. They just put their feet up and enjoy their family. Others are unable to work because of health or family needs. For those Canadians, the GIS is there for them to top up their incomes. However, there are some older Canadians who want to continue working. Perhaps they're a new Canadian who arrived in Canada midway through their life and they need to fortify their retirement savings in order to build a nest egg. Perhaps they're someone who wants to continue to ply a trade part time into their retirement years. For those Canadians who want to work, the phase-out rates in the existing GIS can present a barrier to work.

In budget 2008, finance minister Jim Flaherty established an exemption of $3,500 for earned income in the GIS. For the first $3,500 you earned, you didn't lose anything off your GIS cheque. This exemption currently allows seniors to earn up to $3,500 a year without losing their GIS.

In budget 2019 and here in Bill C-97, Minister of Finance Bill Morneau has proposed to extend and enhance this GIS exemption in three important ways. The basic exemption is proposed to be extended up to $5,000. There will then be a partial exemption on the next $10,000 of earnings. As well, self-employment will now qualify for the exemption. Combined, this means that a senior who might be working at a part-time job or another kind of job and earning, say, $20,000 a year will now be further ahead by almost $3,000 per year.

In my assessment, this measure is well designed and should be supported for two main reasons. First, the GIS is left in place for those who need it most, that is, seniors at highest risk for poverty, and this proposal leaves in place every dollar now going to needy seniors. Second, for those able to work, this measure allows them to keep more of their earnings and build a more secure income base for their own future retirement.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.

[Adam Brown]

We hope this will open the door for further support for graduate students for grants to those who need them.

Finally, we were encouraged to see investments in paid, work-integrated learning opportunities. This includes the projected increase of 84,000 new job placements, as well as the expansion to offer opportunities for students in the arts, humanities and social sciences fields. In our recent paper, “Shared Perspectives: A Joint Publication on Preparing Students for the Workforce”, student organizations across the country shared their expertise on the benefits of work-integrated learning, including the added skills and long-term salary benefits for students who participate in these programs. We trust the implementation of this program will support marginalized students who encounter additional barriers in accessing these opportunities.

In an effort for further inclusion, these opportunities must also include streamlined access for international students. As stated in our pre-budget submission, Canada recommends that the federal government remove the requirement for international students to seek an additional work permit to pursue co-op and internship opportunities, and instead allow this work under the international student study permit.

I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-97, and students' impressions on budget 2019's investments in student financial aid, indigenous students, graduate students and work-integrated learning.

I look forward to your questions.

[Adam Brown, Chair, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, esteemed committee members, fellow witnesses and members of the gallery.

I would like to start off by acknowledging the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg people, where we have the privilege of gathering today.

My name is Adam Brown. I am the Chair of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, or CASA. I'm also the vice-president external of the University of Alberta Students' Union, and a fifth year student completing a business degree, majoring in business, economics and law.

CASA is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that represents over 360,000 students at colleges, universities and polytechnics across the country. Through a formal partnership with the Union étudiante du Québec we are entrusted a national student voice. We advocate for a post-secondary system that is accessible, affordable, innovative and of the highest quality.

Thank you for your invitation to appear before the committee to discuss our impressions of Bill C-97. I'm thankful to be here representing students at a time when there is a threat to student organizing especially here in Ontario. When students are unable to speak for themselves, it jeopardizes representation, accountability and democracy. Everyone suffers, especially post-secondary institutions. I'm hopeful that in the future, students will continue to have opportunities like this one.

Broadly speaking, we are very pleased to see budget 2019's investments in young Canadians, especially the government's commitments to student financial aid, indigenous students, graduate student research and work-integrated learning. I will spend the remainder of my time briefly overviewing our impression on the proposed changes within these areas.

Budget 2019 brings important changes to the Canada student loans program. We are especially excited to see the lowered interest rates and the new interest-free six-month grace period.

Furthermore, we are pleased to see the additional changes made to help modernize the Canada student loans program to better respond to the needs of vulnerable student loan borrowers. This includes the expanded grants for students with disabilities and the interest-free, payment-free, stackable leave for borrowers taking temporary leave due to parental or medical reasons, including severe mental health issues. This recognition and inclusion of students struggling with mental health challenges in the Canada student loans program is a welcome adjustment and will certainly support many students throughout their studies.

In 2016, the National College Health Assessment survey of Canadian post-secondary students reported that 46% of students felt, and I quote, “so depressed that it was difficult to function”.

The Mental Health Commission of Canada further reports that about a half of post-secondary students with mental health disabilities will experience the onset of their condition over the course of their post-secondary education. Our campuses are experiencing a mental health crisis and this recognition by the federal loans program is an important first step in addressing it. We are eager to see how this will continue to be applied across other areas of the program.

We were also very pleased to see tremendous investments in first nations, Métis and Inuit students through individualized education strategies, specialized skills and employment training, mental wellness initiatives, increased grants and bursaries, and investments in Arctic and northern education. We hope this will be a first step in adopting all of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, especially in providing adequate funding to end the backlog of first nations students seeking post-secondary education.

In 2018, the Assembly of First Nations identified 36,901 students who were eligible but unable to access government funding to attend a post-secondary institution. Increasing meaningful and sustained access to post-secondary education for first nations, Métis and Inuit communities is an important first step in the ongoing journey towards reconciliation.

Students are also pleased with the investments in graduate student research, including those to the Canada graduate scholarships program, which will create 500 more master's level scholarships and 167 more doctoral scholarship awards annually. These investments will give more students the chance to contribute to Canada's growth and prosperity through innovative research.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 30, 2019, we are dealing with Bill C-97, which is the budget implementation act.

We have several witnesses here.

I hope you can hear us, Mr. Milligan. You're by video conference. Can you hear us?

[Grand Chief Edward John, Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, committee members.

I'd like to acknowledge the Algonquin people as well, and their traditional homelands.

We're from the same organization in British Columbia, so I won't go into that background. I do want to mention that on submitting this report, the Premier of British Columbia asked, given the significant numbers of children in care, to seek advice on what the province ought to be doing. It's close to a 200-page report with some 86 recommendations. It takes an extensive look at the impacts of laws, policies and practice standards.

I didn't start there. I started in the communities, asking them what they thought and how they felt about how these provincial laws, policies, regulations and practice standards impacted them. This story is really from their perspective. It's the practice side of this impact in our communities. The clerk has this, as well as a summary. There's another document that was tabled with the clerk with our position.

Bill C-92 represents a clear advancement for prevention, early intervention and protection services—in section 1—for indigenous children, youth and families in their respective communities while acknowledging and respecting the diversity of indigenous peoples.

The bill speaks to indigenous youth, but in the operative sections of the bill, the youth are not included. I think it's something that needs to be considered. It may be an oversight.

The national advisory committee is an advisory committee to the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada. The interim report from that committee was submitted to the former minister of Indigenous Services Canada, Jane Philpott, and the AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde. I chaired that committee. The recommendation from that committee was that the federal government consider enacting federal legislation to address the staggering challenges faced by first nations people relating to children and families. Minister Philpott concluded that these challenges amounted to humanitarian crises. We all recall that moment.

Indigenous peoples developing their own laws, regulations, policies and practice standards will exercise their responsibilities in a modern context and uphold and act on their inherent rights to support their children and families. Their laws: by them, for them. Clause 18, read together with clauses 2 and 8 provide a necessary and critical foundation for this.

The operative principles of “substantive equality” in subclause 9(3) and “cultural continuity” in subclause 9(2) are essential for indigenous peoples. When combined with the necessary and extensive support from the federal and provincial governments, they will help to address the deeply rooted ravages of over 150 years of deliberate and misguided assimilation of Crown laws and policies. The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called it “cultural genocide”.

Bill C-92 together with Bill C-91 on indigenous languages provide a substantive framework to remedy past government policy pillars to “kill the Indian in the child” by removing the child from siblings, family, community, foods, lands, territories and resources; and providing education to Christianize and civilize the child by declaring as inferior indigenous philosophies, teachings, languages and culture.

The proposed legislation has shortcomings and is not exhaustive. For indigenous peoples, there will be both internal and external challenges, obstacles and hurdles for the full and effective realization of this significant aspect of the right to self-determination. Constructive and desperately needed changes for indigenous peoples will take time.

I have three recommendations that I want to deal with.

Clause 15 should be strengthened by ensuring the necessary support and other measures for parents, extended family and community, so that no child is removed for reasons related to poverty or the socio-economic circumstances of the child's family.

The recommendation on financing and funding is critically important. There's only one reference in the preamble. The recommendation is that the underlying substance of this acknowledgement should be moved from the preamble to the operative provisions of the bill.

I agree with the recommendation on amending article 8 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are hopeful that the three bills, Bill C-262, Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, will be adopted and royal assent will be given before the end of this Parliament's mandate.

Finally, the budget implementation legislation, which contains many significant financial commitments to first nations, Inuit and Métis people needs to be adopted. We cannot have Canada's commitments die on an Order Paper. We've been through that once before.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll get back to the bill before us, Bill C-97.

Thank you all for coming here today.

My first question is on how to measure poverty. Your presentation was excellent and convincing. You said that we shouldn't be using the Market Basket Measure, the MBM. You would use another tool which is the 60% low-income measure, if I understood you correctly. I'm not quite sure what we would be replacing the MBM with to truly target poverty. Could you explain it to me?

[Anita Khanna, National Director, Public Policy and Government Relations, United Way Centraide Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill C-97 tonight.

My name is Anita Khanna and I'm the national director of public policy and government relations for United Way Centraide Canada. We are a federated network of member offices serving more than 5,000 communities across Canada. In 2019, our movement is marking our 100th year. Across Canada, United Ways and Centraides engage Canadians through a network of individual donors, service agencies and labour and business partners to make poverty and exclusion unignorable.

Today, United Way is an essential part of Canada's social fabric. We inject half a billion dollars into important social programs annually, making strategic investments that are based on local evidence to support the most vulnerable.

My remarks today will focus on divisions 19 and 20 in clause 313 of Bill C-97, the national housing strategy act and the poverty reduction act. Each proposed act is an important social policy milestone for Canada. They represent history in the making and we must get them right, for this generation and for future ones.

Strong evidence shows that federal leadership on housing and poverty is essential to building strong communities. This is why we actively drew on our national network of local experts to ground our policy recommendations for the poverty and the national housing strategies. We are very pleased to see that both acts include many of United Way Centraide Canada's recommendations.

United Way Centraide local members are leaders in evidence-based community investment for lasting social change and impact. As such, we have proposed changes to strengthen the housing and the poverty strategies over the last years. Most recently, we sent a letter to the Hon. Bill Morneau calling for amendments to clarify and strengthen the human rights elements of division 19, the housing legislation.

These included clear recognition of housing as a human right, consistent with international law; outlining a clear monitoring role for the housing council; ensuring the independence of the advocate outside of the national housing strategy; and including through reporting as well as mandating the housing advocate to receive and investigate petitions identifying systemic housing rights issues.

We believe these and other amendments outlined in the letter I distributed, which was sent to the Hon. Bill Morneau, will strengthen the human rights accountability of the national housing strategy act. These are necessary to align with Canada's human rights commitments and also to begin to truly establish Canada as a world leader in legislating the progressive realization of the right to housing.

Within the proposed poverty reduction act, in division 20, we welcome the elements specified: Targets, timelines, robust measurement and the advisory council. In the spirit of continuous improvement, United Way Centraide Canada recommends the following amendments:

Strengthening the overarching target of the poverty reduction strategy outlined in 6(b) so that the stated goal of the legislation is to achieve the end of poverty in Canada. The current 50% reduction aligns with the minimum standard of the UN's sustainable development goals. Given Canada has met its 20% reduction target ahead of schedule, we urge the government to adopt a more ambitious approach to poverty reduction.

Further, in section 11, the poverty reduction act currently calls for the dissolution of the national advisory council on poverty once the, "Minister is of the opinion that the level of poverty in Canada has been reduced by 50% below the level of poverty in 2015." Given the ultimate goal we have outlined for the elimination of poverty, we call for the removal of this clause so that the council can continue its work until poverty is eliminated.

Our final recommendation also relates to the national advisory council on poverty. We are extremely pleased to see the council positioned as an independent body with a membership reflecting the diversity of Canadians, including those with lived experience of poverty and indigenous communities.

We believe that the council's resourcing will ultimately be what determines its independence. Looking back at the experience of the National Welfare Council, we note that that council was eliminated by the stroke of a budgetary pen. For this council to avoid that same fate, we must have an independent source of income sufficient to meet its mandate on an ongoing basis.

In a paper by Michael Mendelson for United Way Centraide Canada, we have identified that this could be done, for example, through the creation of a dedicated endowment fund. This would guarantee public accountability and efficient management of those funds. We further propose that the council be subject to the financial oversight of the Auditor General.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important process. United Way is ever committed to working with all parties and our business, labour and community partners to build stronger, more prosperous communities for all.

Thank you.

[Elizabeth McIsaac, President, Maytree]

Thank you, and good evening.

My name is Elizabeth McIsaac. I'm the president of Maytree, a private charitable foundation in Toronto focused on human rights and poverty.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to provide recommendations for amendments to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act

My written submission includes recommended amendments to the national housing strategy act and the poverty reduction act. For this presentation, however, my comments are focused on recommended amendments to the national housing strategy act.

I'll begin by saying that you've probably heard a bit of what I'm going to say from the earlier panel, but I think it bears repeating.

Canadians believe that equality, non-discrimination and freedom from fear and want, among other protections and freedoms, are fundamental to a free and democratic society. These values are reflected in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and form guiding principles for how we govern, legislate and develop public policy.

While Canadians may believe that we have a strong tradition of upholding human rights, we have in fact been selective about which rights we recognize and protect. To date, our successes have been largely focused on civil and political rights. Civil and political rights, like freedom of religion and the right to vote, are critical and reflect specific movements and political moments in our national and international history. We should be proud of that. However, economic and social rights are just as fundamental. In fact, both are needed and make each other whole as human rights.

While there has been reticence on the part of past Canadian legislatures to recognize and uphold economic and social rights, this is, I believe, the moment to do so. As you heard earlier from Tim, there are currently over 235,000 Canadians who are homeless, and over 1.7 million households in Canada live in unsuitable, inadequate or unaffordable housing. Canadians understand that safe, affordable and secure housing is critical to living life with dignity. Housing is a human right.

With the introduction of the national housing strategy act, we have an opportunity to recognize one of the basic and fundamental rights that we think all Canadians must be afforded. The proposed legislation undertakes a rights-based approach to housing, and provides an opportunity to reset the framework within which we conceptualize, develop and implement housing policy in Canada. We need to get this right. The proposed national housing strategy act needs to be strengthened, so that it clearly recognizes that housing is a human right and includes an effective accountability framework and mechanism for affected groups to claim their rights.

We urge the members of the standing committee to support our proposed amendments, which are outlined in more detail in our submission. Particular emphasis should be placed, first, on unequivocally recognizing that housing is a fundamental human right, as per our international commitments and international law; second, on mandating that the housing advocate receive and investigate petitions identifying systemic housing rights issues; and third, on establishing a process for a review panel to hear and make recommendations on these issues.

Being able to claim your right is essential in a rights-based approach. Without this, it is empty. The housing advocate must also be independent. This accountability and transparency is an essential element of a human-rights approach.

Finally, we feel that it is essential to establish a monitoring role for the housing council. Currently, it is mandated to give advice to the minister. We believe that, in addition to giving advice to the minister, it should monitor how effective the strategy has been. The progressive realization of the right to housing is, again, an essential element in a rights-based approach. Without this, the approach is empty.

We believe these proposed amendments will commit Canada to the progressive realization of the right to housing and set out the framework for an accountability mechanism that meets our obligations under international law, while reflecting a unique made in Canada approach. Importantly, affected groups will have access to public hearings on key systemic issues before an expert panel with at least one representative of affected communities.

All of these elements are critical to the development and implementation of an effective rights-based framework. The proposed amendments to the national housing strategy act will help ensure that Canada gets it right. This is a unique opportunity, and we must get it right.

It has taken several decades for economic and social rights to be at the forefront of the Canadian imagination. The federal government's leadership in this regard is appreciated. Continued momentum towards ensuring that Canadians are protected by economic and social rights is critical.

I'd like to leave you with a quote from our former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Louise Arbour, because I think she puts it best:

The values of freedom, equality and tolerance reflect a very large consensus in Canada. They are values which have been...embodied in our international commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, amongst [other conventions]. I want to ask you today, however—perhaps somewhat provocatively—if we have done everything within our power to give those values, and those legal commitments, effect in our day-to-day life as a nation.

My response to the challenge from Justice Arbour would be this: With the national housing strategy act, if passed with the right amendments, which we are proposing, we would finally begin to get there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Let's reconvene.

We have a number of witnesses for Bill C-97. I believe five organizations are represented here in the second panel.

I will say there will be bells at about 5:52. At that time I expect we'll get unanimous consent to continue for a little while. If you can hold your remarks to five minutes, it will be helpful.

First on deck will be Mr. Baker from CARP.

Go ahead, Mr. Baker.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses and apologies for the truncated time.

Yesterday, Minister Blair and the representative from the UNHCR tried to convince the committee that the provisions under Bill C-97 are fine and that refugees—asylum seekers—would not be put at risk because there is going to be an enhanced pre-removal risk assessment process. The question was asked of CARL and of Amnesty whether or not that is the case. They responded clearly and definitively to say that people would be at risk. They, in fact, called on the government to withdraw this bill.

I would like to get comments from representatives from CCR about whether or not the justification that the minister and UNHCR tried to advance is one that should be accepted?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Oh dear, I have four minutes. Okay.

Ms. Stephens, I was reading your submission and I had a couple of questions. I'll give them to you quickly, and maybe you can roll them all into one.

You talk about Bill C-97 allowing for more investigations and prosecutions of laundering offences. And you talk about the professional money launderers being able to distance themselves. Can you maybe explain a little bit about what that means? That's my first question.

The second thing was that you talked about adopting a more risk-based approach to the regime, and reporting entities to focus on risk typologies and customers who demonstrate significant risks. What I think you mean is ability for you as banks to identify, based on risk criteria, who could be at risk.

Could you speak to those two issues?

[Karen Cox, President, Ontario Real Estate Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Karen Cox and I'm the president of the Ontario Real Estate Association. With me today is Matthew Thornton, vice-president of communications and public affairs at OREA.

It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

By way of introduction, OREA is the industry association that represents over 78,000 licensed realtors in communities across Ontario. Our members wake up each and every day looking to help our clients achieve the dream of home ownership because we believe that owning a home is something that should be attainable for families not just here in Ontario, but right across Canada as well.

For generations, Ontario has been a place where if you worked hard, got a good education and played by the rules you could own a home. This is increasingly difficult today.

According to the latest census, for the first time since John A. Macdonald, home ownership rates in Ontario are on the decline. One of the reasons for this decline is a lack of supply, which has driven up the price of housing to the point that families are finding it almost impossible to break into the market.

As a working realtor, I see this frustration on faces of Ontarians every day.

And I know this is not limited to Ontario. Families right across this country are finding it increasingly difficult to break into their local housing market.

Just last week, OREA's CEO, Tim Hudak, attended an announcement by the Ontario minister of housing, the honourable Steve Clark, where the province unveiled its housing supply action plan.

We were pleased that many of the province's initiatives were recommendations that OREA had made during the consultation period, including perhaps the boldest change in the plan, which was to fast-track development of new housing near transit stations. This change will result in smarter, more walkable and affordable communities near Ontario's major transit stations.

But it cannot be left to provincial governments to solve what is a national housing crisis. We need bold action from the federal government to help more middle-class Canadian families achieve the dream of ownership.

The government's budget included some very positive proposals to help more Canadian families afford a home. We were pleased to see the introduction of the first-time home buyers' incentive, the proposed increase to the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit, additional funding through the rental construction financing initiative and the housing supply challenge for municipalities.

These are only the first steps. The budget failed to fix the punishing impact on home buyers from the new mortgage stress test, which has reduced buying power by 20 cents on the dollar. Whether you're a millennial looking to buy your first home or a growing family who has saved and wants to upgrade, the stress test rules have compromised what you're able to finance.

In order to qualify for a mortgage, families must now demonstrate that they can afford interest rates of two percentage points higher than what they negotiate with their lender. These restrictive rules even apply to those who do not need mortgage insurance.

The harm caused by the stress test has been vast. Home sales in Canada in 2018 fell by 11% compared to 2017, and 15% compared to 2016.

The federally imposed stress test is a big part of the reason. Moreover, the rationale for the stress test is badly flawed. It protects against a far-fetched scenario by assuming that interest rates will rise 2% by the time a fixed-rate mortgage is due for renewal, but the homeowner's income won't rise at all.

Any party that wants to offer a serious plan for homeowners needs to start by making the stress test much more balanced.

Ontario realtors believe further action is needed beyond addressing the challenges brought about by the stress test. For example, the NDP is proposing a return to 30-year mortgages for those who have mortgage insurance.

This is a great idea. It means millennials and young families who don't yet have a big down payment will still be able to buy a home and begin building home equity earlier in their life. It also means their monthly or bi-weekly payments will be more manageable so that young parents can devote more of their income to their kids' music lessons and hockey equipment.

Poll after poll shows that housing affordability is a huge issue, and while the steps taken in Bill C-97 are a good first step, much more is needed in order to ensure middle-class families from right across Canada are able to achieve the dream of home ownership.

Thank you, and I would be happy to take any questions.

[Brian Lee Crowley, Managing Director, Macdonald-Laurier Institute]

Thank you, Chair, for inviting me here today.

Let me begin by saying how delighted I am that the government has begun to take seriously the problem of the integrity of the border, particularly with respect to illegal or, if you prefer, irregular border crossers. Unfortunately, while the government is making noises that it wants to repair the damage at the border, there is little evidence that the measures that have been proposed will be effective, and the government has not yet committed itself to changes that would make a real difference. Basically, I think the principle that should guide us here is that the rule should not reward people trying to game the system at the expense of those who are law-abiding.

Let's begin with why it is correct to say that there is a problem at the border. Canada's highly successful post-war immigration policy, supported by an all-party consensus and public opinion, has never been laissez-faire about who gets into Canada. On the contrary, that admirable policy has always been premised on the idea that Canada decides who gets into the country and that the selection process will be carried out in a disciplined and orderly way, in a very Canadian way, I might say.

In the last several years, however, that supportive public consensus has been severely undermined. First was the discovery that would-be immigrants could exploit a flaw in the law regarding people wishing to claim refugee status in Canada. The law is premised on the sensible notion that refugees should make their claim for status in the first safe country they arrive in. Canada, like the rest of the civilized world, sees the priority with refugees as their safety, or to use the official word, their protection, not their ability to shop around for the country they would most like to live in.

Since the bulk of refugee claimants arriving in Canada did so via the United States, we negotiated a safe third country agreement, a STCA, with Washington, which assured that refugee claimants attempting to enter Canada from the U.S. would be turned back on the grounds that the U.S., a country with a sound process for assessing refugee claims, is where their claims should be made and adjudicated.

Some clever person worked out that, since this rule could be avoided simply by crossing the border illegally between official crossings, there exists no mechanisms under the STCA for returning refugee claimants who enter elsewhere than official border crossings. Once this unintended loophole became public, the predictable result was that tens of thousands of people crossed the border illegally and presented themselves as refugees when, in fact, a great many of them were simply queue-jumping economic migrants.

Indeed, fewer than half of the refugee claims that have been made have been accepted. The government's first response to criticism questioning the wisdom and propriety of this policy was to accuse its critics of racism and wanting Canada to abandon its commitment to the fair treatment of refugees. This position is untenable on several counts.

First, many of the critics of what was emerging as the situation I've just described were themselves new Canadians understandably upset at the weakening of the integrity of an immigration system that many of them patiently navigated in order to come to Canada. They waited their turn. They felt law-abiding people were being penalized and that queue-jumpers were given an unfair advantage.

Second, the criticism logically implied that the current government policy of turning refugee claimants back at official border crossings was also racist; it is a necessary conclusion, if you think this through. The current border-crossing policy at official border crossing is racist, if you accept the premise I've just outlined, and the official policy at border crossings failed to uphold Canada's refugee commitments. This is clearly nonsense.

Alarmed at the erosion in public confidence in the immigration system, the government is now trying to project an image of stern defender of the border, but so far, I think this is largely image over substance. Look for example at clause 306 of Bill C-97, which makes ineligible for refugee status claimants who have previously made a claim for refugee protection in a third country such as the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. Clause 306 is intended to stop what Minister Blair has called asylum shopping. Such behaviour can cause stress on our overloaded asylum system, which we should recall has a backlog of tens of thousands of people, as documented by the Auditor General, who says we are not equipped to deal with such surges of claimants.

Minister Blair, however, has just in the last couple of days confirmed that these changes simply move these claimants into a different bureaucratic process but with the same rights of in-person presentation, right to counsel, judicial appeal and granting a protected person status instead of refugee status, which means no removal.

This measure seems to me to be largely window-dressing, not least because I've been informed that the minister himself has indicated that the changes will perhaps affect at most about 10% of irregular migrants. Indeed since the typical illegal border crosser at, say, Roxham Road in Quebec is a Nigerian who has made no claim elsewhere, this measure is largely irrelevant to the problem at hand.

By contrast, a very positive step is clause 304 of Bill, C-97, which provides real consequences for countries that obstruct our efforts to return their citizens whom we are attempting to deport. Specifically, we may deny or suspend applications for temporary resident visas, work permits or study permits from people from the country in question. That is a reasonable and pragmatic action to enforce reciprocity with otherwise unco-operative countries and ultimately to expedite the removal of deportees.

Notably, it is a measure that has been recommended by my institute in previous publications, and while it hasn't received much attention, it is a change that would have significant impact and lead to increased immigration enforcement results.

Leading an international effort by like-minded countries to generalize this approach would allow Canada to exercise genuine international leadership in the field, which is something I think all of us would like to see.

I would strongly recommend, however, that we take this further and enlarge the scope of sanctions that we can employ against non-co-operating countries including all visas, development aid, the operation of any trade agreement and any other means of bringing pressure to bear.

We are spending ever more resources on deporting ever fewer people, because other countries don't want these people back. We cannot allow these countries to exploit our generosity, which will only lessen the welcome we can extend to genuine refugees.

The heated objections from the refugee industry and the immigration lawyers club to these useful and sometimes less useful changes are hugely overdone, although they certainly deserve full scrutiny—

[Jeff Morrison, Executive Director, Canadian Housing and Renewal Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting CHRA to appear today.

As you know, CHRA represents the social, non-profit and affordable housing sector in Canada.

Budget 2019 is another step in the government's efforts to deal with housing insecurity. The budget includes measures to increase access for first-time home buyers and it follows previous decisions seeking to consolidate and strengthen the community housing sector, decisions which were mainly contained in the National Housing Strategy of Canada of 2017.

Without seeking to minimize the importance of these measures, I would like to use most of my time to talk about two main issues. The first one is the proposed National Housing Strategy Act, contained in Bill C-97, and the second issue is the huge gap between the bill and the government's vision on housing, specifically the absence of a housing strategy for indigenous people living in urban and rural areas, as well as in the North.

The 2017 national housing strategy contained a commitment to “progressively implement the right of every Canadian to access adequate housing.” As discussed by my colleague Tim, this promise is being realized through the national housing strategy act, in clause 313 of C-97.

CHRA has long advocated for such legislation, as it would not only enshrine the progressive rights of people in Canada to housing, as recognized in several United Nations declarations that we've already signed, but would also legislatively require the relevant minister to “develop and maintain a national housing strategy”, which would have as a guiding principle, “(c) focus on improving housing outcomes for persons in greatest need”. Not only do we fully support these goals, but we wish to commend the government for taking what is truly a historic step in social policy development in Canada with this bill.

However, there are ways in which the bill can be improved. My colleague Tim has outlined a few proposals in that regard, and we support what Mr. Richter has said.

I'd like to add three additional proposed amendments. All of those amendments have been summarized in a letter that we've sent to the minister, which we have provided to the committee clerk.

First, we strongly feel that there needs to be explicit recognition of the progressive right to housing for indigenous peoples, including very importantly, indigenous peoples living in urban, rural and northern areas of Canada. An explicit reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples within the legislation would be useful in this regard. Although I recognize that Canada's ratification of UNDRIP is still not entirely complete—I understand we're still waiting for a royal assent—it would absolutely be a disservice not to include an explicit progressive right to housing for indigenous peoples simply based on a technicality.

Secondly, the legislation currently states:

18 (1) The Minister must, before March 31, 2021 and within every three years after that date, cause a report to be made on the effectiveness of the National Housing Strategy, with respect to the achievement of the desired outcomes, and the initiatives related to its implementation.

We'd suggest amending that reporting period to annually rather than every three years. Frankly, it will be very difficult to make changes to the strategy or to identify gaps or shortcomings based on a three-year report. An annual report would be a much more effective accountability period.

Lastly, we recommend that the legislation clearly spell out that the new housing advocate position—again, as Mr. Richter referred to—report directly to Parliament rather than potentially the minister. As it stands, the legislation is somewhat vague on this point. Such an amendment would remove any sort of political considerations and would really strengthen the non-partisan role of that advocate position.

Mr. Chair, there is a final point I wish to raise, and that, frankly, is what is not in Bill C-97.

As the committee knows, housing conditions for indigenous peoples, especially living in rural, urban and northern settings, are considerably worse than for non-indigenous peoples. In the national housing strategy, the Government of Canada committed to developing three distinction-based indigenous strategies, for first nations, Inuit, and Métis. Although this is welcome, these strategies do not directly address the housing inequality faced by indigenous peoples living in urban and rural settings, which is where approximately 87% of indigenous peoples live.

Until that fourth housing stream focusing on urban and rural and northern indigenous peoples is introduced, frankly, the government's overall housing policy will not be complete. In fact, this committee, the finance committee, recognized this inequality when, in your pre-budget report to the Minister of Finance released in December, one of your recommendations was to “Work with Indigenous governments and organizations to develop an urban, rural, and northern indigenous housing strategy.”

We would ask that you continue to advocate for that recommendation. Our own indigenous caucus has developed a proposed strategy for indigenous by indigenous, or FIBI, that provides a road map for how such a strategy could be enacted. It's on our website, and we encourage you all to please download a copy.

Bill C-97, the National Housing Strategy Act, is an important tool in the national strategy toolkit. By bringing a few improvements to the bill and incorporating a strategy based on the needs of indigenous peoples living in urban and rural areas as well as in the North, the federal government will establish a solid housing legacy. Moreover, these measures will help CMHC meet its objectives and enable all Canadians to have a place to live that meets their needs by 2030.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Claire Roque, President, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Allow me to continue to illustrate to you the story of the other sister, who was travelling later. She has the misfortune of being arrested by U.S. immigration officials as part of the intensified immigration enforcement measures under President Trump. She has no choice but to make a refugee claim in the U.S. in order to avoid deportation to her country of origin. She still wants to reunite with her sister in Canada. After everything they have been through, they really need to be together to support each other.

Also, lawyers in the U.S. tell her that she has little chance of being accepted as a refugee in light of the decision by former attorney general Jeff Sessions, which takes a much more sensitive, restrictive approach to claims based on gender persecution.

She enters Canada at a port of entry, but she is ineligible to make a refugee claim because she made a claim in the U.S. She is able to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, but she must make her application in writing. She does not speak English or French, and she has no way of hiring a lawyer to represent her.

She may struggle to get social assistance and must pay a fee for a work permit. If she manages to get her application in despite this, it will be reviewed by a PRRA officer, who is a more junior civil servant than those at the IRB. They don't have the same access to training and are not subject to the chairperson's guidelines. There is no right to a hearing. If the application is refused—surprisingly, given all the challenges—she cannot appeal at the refugee appeal division. Her only recourse is to apply for a judicial review at the Federal Court. In any case, she can be deported from Canada before the court makes a decision. There's a real risk that the sister will end up being deported to her home country, where she may be assaulted or killed by the people she fled.

It is important to recognize that there are many reasons a person may have previously made a claim in the U.S. or another country and still need Canada's protection. A person may come to Canada to join a family member who is already here. A person may have been advised that their claim had little chance of success in the U.S. A person's claim may have been rejected even though they have well-founded fear of persecution. The person may have made a claim in another country as part of a family group—as a spouse or as a child—without having had the chance to speak for themselves.

This matter hits very close to home for me. I doubt very much that I would be appearing to you in my capacity as Canadian Council for Refugees' president if the proposed change had been in effect when I made a refugee claim in Canada.

Refugee determination is not only a matter of life and death, it is also extremely difficult and often involves vulnerable people. In recognition of this, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has detailed provisions to protect claimants. None of this exists for the PRRA process. Some of the most vulnerable claimants are unaccompanied minors. The law provides for a designated representative to be appointed to protect their interests, but this only applies to claimants referred to the IRB. There can be no designated representative for children who are ineligible and sent through the PRRA process.

While some people will be at risk of deportation to face persecution because of the inadequacy of the PRRA, other people will be condemned to long-term limbo in Canada. This is the situation for claimants from countries to which Canada has suspended removal. Due to a situation of generalized risk, a PRRA is not available to a person who is facing deportation from Canada.

Until the tabling of Bill C-97, Canadians could be proud that their government had generally responded in a principled and rights-based way to recent increases in the number of refugee claimants arriving in Canada. With this proposal, Canada will be shamefully joining too many other countries that respond to increased numbers of refugees not by matching capacity to needs, but by closing doors on people fleeing rights abuses.

Once again, the Canadian Council for Refugees calls on the committee to reject the proposed amendments in their entirety.

Thank you.

[Sandy Stephens, Assistant General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with the committee today as part of your study of Bill C-97, specifically on the changes in division 2, part 4 of the legislation, which deal with anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing.

My name is Sandy Stephens and I'm an assistant general counsel with the Canadian Bankers Association. The CBA is the voice of more than 60 domestic and foreign banks that help drive Canada's economic growth and prosperity. The CBA advocates for public policies that contribute to a sound, thriving banking system to ensure Canadians can succeed in their financial goals.

The banking industry is fully committed to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Banks in Canada take their responsibility under Canada's AML/ATF regime very seriously, working co-operatively with the Department of Finance, FINTRAC, law enforcement agencies and provincial regulators.

The banking industry is fully supportive of the government's recent actions and ongoing plans to strengthen Canada's AML/ATF regime. This includes measures announced in budget 2019 to increase funding to police and FINTRAC to expand operational and investigative capacity, to develop the anti-money laundering action, coordination and enforcement team, and to expand public-private partnership projects to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the regime.

With respect to the AML/ATF provisions contained in Bill C-97, we are fully supportive of improving transparency and beneficial ownership, including the amendments to the CBCA that would allow law enforcement access to the beneficial ownership information that corporations will be required to maintain under this act. The banking industry looks forward to the second phase of this work, which will examine registry options. We believe that reporting entities should have access to any registry that is developed.

Also, the banking industry supports the amendments to section 462.31(a) of the Criminal Code to add an alternate requirement of recklessness to the offence of money laundering. Banks devote significant resources to their reporting obligations under the AML/ATF regime and we support provisions that would allow for more output in the form of investigations and prosecutions of money-laundering offences. This amendment to the Criminal Code will help to prevent professional money launderers, who purposely distance themselves from criminal organizations and their predicate offences, from avoiding prosecution.

Further to recommendations made by this committee, we look forward to working with the government going forward to explore mechanisms and models to enhance public-private information sharing as well as information sharing between private sector stakeholders. It is widely recognized that improved information sharing can facilitate more targeted disruption of illicit activities and improve the effectiveness of the regime.

In this regard, it is worth noting that we also strongly support the recent recommendation of the ETHI committee that PIPEDA be amended to allow for a broader range of instances where financial institutions can share information beyond financial fraud, including money laundering and terrorist financing, in order to strengthen the regime as a whole. At the same time, we recognize that any measures taken to enhance information sharing must be balanced with privacy considerations.

The changes in Bill C-97 are positive steps to improve Canada's AML/ATF regime. The banks' central role in implementing the regime gives them hands-on experience and insight into where the regime can continue to be improved over time to more effectively and efficiently fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Through the strong dialogue that the industry maintains with government agencies and regulators, we look forward to using that first-hand experience to assist in additional areas to strengthen the regime even further.

For example, adopting a more risk-based approach to the regime to encourage reporting entities to focus on risk typologies and customers who demonstrate significant AML/ATF risk would allow banks and others to effectively dedicate resources where they can achieve the greatest benefit.

To conclude, banks remain committed to the global fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, and we will continue to work collaboratively with the federal government.

Thank you for your time today. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[Randall Koops, Director General, Policing Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Sure.

Good afternoon. I'm Randall Koops, the director general of policing and firearms policy at Public Safety Canada.

I am accompanied by Jacques Talbot. He is a lawyer and legal counsel for the Department of Justice.

We're happy to appear today to assist the committee in its examination of division 10 of part 4 of Bill C-97. This bill would make amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to establish in law a new management advisory board to advise the commissioner of the RCMP on the administration and management of the force.

The bill sets out the Board's mandate, composition, administration, and other requirements.

In January 2019, the government accepted the recommendations contained in two reports on harassment at the RCMP: one from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, or CRCC, and the other from the former Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser.

These reports, as others have before them, identified governance change as a necessary part of stamping out harassment within the ranks of the RCMP.

The government agreed and committed to establishing a management advisory board to guide the RCMP transformation agenda, which proposes major points of intervention for the government to reshape the foundations of the RCMP and orient it towards better long-term outcomes.

The proposed management advisory board would support the Commissioner of the RCMP in accomplishing her mandate commitment to lead the force through a period of transformation, to modernize it, and to reform its culture; in ensuring the sound overall management of the RCMP; in protecting the health and safety of RCMP employees; and in making sure that the RCMP delivers high-quality police services based on appropriate priorities, to keep Canadians safe and protect their civil liberties.

The mandate of the board would be to advise the commissioner of the RCMP on the force's administration and management, including its human resources, management controls, corporate planning and budgets. The composition of the management advisory board would be up to 13 members, including a chairperson and a vice-chairperson appointed by the Governor in Council on a part-time basis for a period of no more than four years.

In selecting these members, the government has indicated that it will consider regional and gender diversity, reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and executive management skills, experiences and competencies, for example, human resources and labour relations, information technology, change management and innovation. The bill would permit the minister to consult provincial and territorial governments that have contracted the services of the RCMP about these appointments. Also, the bill sets out the grounds of ineligibility, most importantly to avoid real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest for board members.

Regarding its operations, the management advisory board would be able to set its own priorities, work plans, and procedures. The Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada and the Commissioner of the RCMP may attend all board meetings as observers, but will not vote.

To make certain that the board is able to advise on anything in its mandate, the RCMP will be obliged to provide the board with information it considers necessary. In addition, the board would be able to share with the minister any advice given to the commissioner.

Most importantly, under this legislation the establishment of the management advisory board would not change the existing roles, responsibilities or accountabilities of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, who will remain accountable to Parliament for the RCMP and retain the authority to direct the commissioner and to establish strategic priorities for the RCMP; of the commissioner of the RCMP, who will retain control and management of the force; nor of the existing RCMP review bodies and existing national security review bodies whose mandates will remain unchanged. Neither will it change the responsibilities of the Treasury Board, which will remain the RCMP's employer.

Bill C-7, which was assented to in 2017, provided for the unionization of RCMP members and reservists. This process is now under way. In C-7, Parliament has reaffirmed the Treasury Board as the force's employer and nothing in these amendments revisits Parliament's decision or disrupts those relationships.

The proposed legislation fully respects a fundamental principle of Canadian policing, which is that police independence underpins the rule of law. The board will not, in any way, impinge upon the independence of RCMP policing operations. It will not be authorized to ask for information that might hinder or compromise an investigation or a prosecution and personal information and cabinet confidences are also out of bounds.

Assuming the bill receives royal assent, the amendments will become effective on a date prescribed by the Governor in Council.

However, if the government creates an interim board in the meantime using its existing authorities under the Public Service Employment Act, then a transitional provision included here in Bill C-97 would continue the tenure of those appointments under the new provisions in the RCMP Act.

In conclusion, the commissioner of the RCMP has said that the creation of a management advisory board is a critical step to help modernize and support a diverse, healthy and effective RCMP. Bill C-97 would make that role permanent to support the current commissioner in her mandate commitment to lead the RCMP through a period of transformation and to support future commissioners in maintaining a force that is trusted by Canadians for its policing excellence.

We would be happy to respond to any questions the committee may have.

[Tim Richter, President, Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-97.

This afternoon I'd like to speak briefly about the national housing strategy act contained within Bill C-97 and the right to housing.

For most Canadians, a home is something we take for granted. Unfortunately, for far too many Canadians, the lack of housing is a matter of life and death. Homelessness is experienced by 235,000 different Canadians every year, at an estimated cost of over $7 billion annually. Homelessness in Canada is on the same scale as our worst natural disasters, but unlike those disasters, homelessness is man-made.

Homelessness as we see it today has not always existed. Modern mass homelessness in Canada is a result of policy choices made largely by the federal government in the late 1980s and 1990s, specifically, decisions to eliminate affordable housing programs.

The national housing strategy begins to reverse those choices. Embedding the right to housing in the national housing strategy act as federal policy will ensure not only that Canada places in law important protections for vulnerable Canadians, but also that we can hardwire into the national housing strategy measures that will make it more effective.

The national housing strategy act makes a policy commitment to the progressive realization of the right to housing, consistent with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; creates an independent housing advocate supported by the Canadian Human Rights Commission; establishes a national housing council with explicit inclusion of people with lived experience of homelessness and inadequate housing; and commits to ensuring the participation of affected communities.

However, as it's written, the national housing strategy act lacks essential elements of a workable human rights accountability framework. Some additional elements need to be added for the legislation to implement an effective, rights-based approach, as promised when the national housing strategy was introduced in November 2017 and as required to bring Canada in line with international human rights standards.

We've been in ongoing conversations with the government and parliamentarians on a few simple amendments so that the national housing strategy act would establish a monitoring role for the housing council that does not simply provide advice, but tracks progress on implementing the progressive realization of the right to housing; that mandates the housing advocate to receive and investigate petitions identifying systemic housing rights issues and assess progress on the progressive implementation on the right to housing; that makes specific recommendations to the minister that the minister must respond to; and that establishes a procedure for the housing advocate to refer important systemic housing rights issues to public hearings before a three-person panel drawn from the housing council, ensuring that affected groups have a voice and that the panel's recommendations will be considered by the minister.

Legislation implementing a rights-based national housing strategy provides a historic opportunity for the federal government to address as a priority critical human rights issues at home and, at the same time, to provide leadership on human rights internationally.

This is the first time in Canada's history that legislation recognizing the right to housing has been introduced, and it's critical that we take the time to do it right. In the national housing strategy act, the government provides an historic policy commitment to the right to housing, but that commitment must include mechanisms to ensure that this historic policy commitment is meaningfully implemented.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

I apologize to the witnesses for the confusion. It looks like there will be more votes today, but we are where we are.

For the purposes of the record, we are dealing with the order of reference of April 30, 2019 for 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 the witnesses, and please keep your remarks as close to five minutes as possible, beginning with the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness and Mr. Richter, the president.

Go ahead.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is creating two classes of refugees in Bill C-97 to pander to the right. Facing backlash, the government emailed Liberal MPs saying that no asylum seekers would be at risk. The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and Amnesty International were clear: That is not true.

The Liberals are desperate for a fix, but experts were explicit: There is no fix. Any people pretending the Liberal proposal is the same as the independent work of the IRB are fooling themselves.

Will the Prime Minister do what thousands of Canadians are demanding and withdraw these dangerous provisions?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

No, but everyone would be getting an opportunity. No one would be removed. Everyone would be given the opportunity under Bill C-97, in division 16, to have the PRRA hearing. My question was that—

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thanks to all the witnesses for coming today and for providing your testimony.

Clause 306 of Bill C-97 would render an individual ineligible to make a refugee claim in Canada if he or she had already made a refugee claim in another country with which Canada has a data-sharing agreement, specifically Australia, New Zealand, the U.S.A. and the U.K. Individuals in this situation would be permitted to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. Could I ask both of you to tell us your recommendations with regard to making sure that the PRRA hearing is strengthened and everyone gets a fair chance in the PRRA hearing? Do you have any recommendations to make sure that we can strengthen this?

I'll start with you, Mr. Mohammed.

[Justin Mohammed, Human Rights Law and Policy Campaigner, Amnesty International Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. That is a particular salient message to bring in this committee because aside from our first peoples, of course, when we're discussing issues of immigration and refugee matters we all have a story that's rooted in migration.

Our remarks today will focus exclusively on clause 306 of the bill, which adds a ground of ineligibility for claims of refugee protection made to the refugee protection division of the IRB. I'd like to register our objection to the fact that the changes being proposed to Canada's refugee protection regime are in an omnibus bill. We salute this committee's decision nevertheless to examine this issue, but we're dismayed that we were not consulted prior to the tabling of this bill.

Over the course of my presentation, I would like to make three points. First, Amnesty International considers that Bill C-97is inconsistent with Canada's commitments under international law. Second, the bill will have the negative impact on Canadian refugee practice by creating a two-tier system of refugee protection. Finally, Canada must not rely on foreign protection regimes to uphold its international obligations.

With respect to the inconsistency in international law, Amnesty International is of the view that clause 306 of Bill C-97 is inconsistent with international refugee law because it constitutes an automatic barrier to the referral of a claim to Canada's refugee status determination system, the refugee protection division.

It operates without regard to when the prior claim was made; the status of the claim in the other country, whether it be finalized, accepted, rejected, withdrawn, etc.; the fairness of the refugee status determination process in the other country or whether there are other possible bona fide reasons for which a person may seek Canada's protection after having done so elsewhere. We consider that automatic bars to consideration of the asylum claims are not in conformity with the refugee convention.

The convention furthermore prohibits discrimination amongst refugees on the basis of race, religion or country of origin. While the measure in Bill C-97 does not discriminate on the basis of these grounds, it is arbitrary and discriminates on the basis of a claim having been filed in another country if that country happens to be Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom or the United States or any other country with which Canada signs an agreement.

We view this to be an analogous ground of discrimination to those covered in the refugee convention and thus a violation of the spirit if not the letter of that convention.

Second, there's the two-tier system. Amnesty International further opposes the measure Bill C-97 because it introduces a two-tier system of refugee protection. While some refugee protection claimants will have access to the robust status determination system in the Immigration and Refugee Board, others will only have access to the PRRA.

The UNHCR has previously expressed concerns about this:

Where access to the refugee determination procedure is denied, and claims referred to the PRRA for determination, there is the risk of creating a two-tier system, in which the protection risks of one class of asylum-seekers are assessed by the Immigration and Refugee Board, while those of another are assessed by CIC officials. This could affect both the efficiency of the system and consistency of decision-making.

The UNHCR handbook, reissued as recently as February 2019, says the same:

There should be a clearly identified authority—wherever possible a single central authority—with responsibility for examining requests for refugee status and taking a decision in the first instance.

Amnesty International supports that view, because the two-tier model results in important differences. I will cover them now.

The first is independence. While the IRB is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal, a PRRA officer is an employee of the IRCC. This new system would undermine the long-standing policy in Canada that claims for refugee protection are heard by an independent decision-maker.

Second is oral hearings. This is discretionary under the PRRA. However, even if an oral interview is afforded, it does not offer the same protections as an IRB hearing. The refugee claimant has no ability to call witnesses or to test the evidence upon which an officer is relying.

Third is appeals. Decisions of the RPD are appealed to the refugee appeal division, whereas appeals of the PRRA go to the Federal Court for judicial review. Both have different standards of review and, more importantly, while an appeal to the refugee appeal division results in an automatic stay of removal an application for judicial review does not.

Finally, Amnesty International is concerned that Bill C-97unduly relies on foreign refugee status determination systems where human rights abuses of refugee protection claimants are well documented. The U.S. provides an illustrative example.

In our 2018 report entitled “You Don’t Have Any Rights Here”, Amnesty International documented three categories of human rights violations that are being committed by the United States: illegal push-backs along the U.S.-Mexico border, family and child separations, and arbitrary and indefinite detention.

Since that report, there has been a slew of administration policies that fail to respect the rights of refugees. One will deny bond to persons seeking refugee protection until their claims are finalized, which we know can take years. Another would establish a general rule that disqualifies victims of gang violence and domestic abuse from refugee protection. Only last week, the Trump administration circulated a memorandum that intends to further dismantle the system of protection by having U.S. border guards, rather than asylum officers, consider those claims.

I'd now like to turn the floor over to my colleague, Marilynn, to provide a real-life example of the type of claim that will be affected if Bill C-97 becomes law.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With respect to the bar for H and C claims under Bill C-97, a group of refugees would not be able to access H and C claims under this current system. Effectively, that means some individuals would be denied that opportunity. I raise this issue, because what's really important is that at the end of the day what Canada has to live up to is to ensure that all refugees have access to the same process—which is the original position of the UNHCR—with respect to the refugee determination system. That is what is at risk right now under Bill C-97.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Actually, we just heard that in Ontario, legal aid is being cut. In fact, refugees do not have access to it.

I do want to go into this other issue, too. We clearly differ in that opinion. The UNHCR also recommended the removal of the five-year bar for designated foreign nationals to file an H and C application from the date of decision or the date of designation. That was back in 2012. Now, under Bill C-97, there is also a bar for people to make application under H and C.

Again I ask this question, why is UNHCR now silent on the current expansions of the H and C application bar?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you for that.

I would argue that of irregular crossers who have come over so far, under our IRB determination process more than half of them have been deemed to be valid claimants. That said, I'm going to park that point for a minute. However they cross over is not really the issue, is it? It's whether or not they have access to a proper process once they get to Canada. That's your point.

You say that under Bill C-97 there is a proper process for them. I would beg to differ. Right now, those who are made to go through the pre-removal risk assessment process would not have an appeal process. The UNHCR back then recommended that all asylum seekers have access to an appeal process on their merits to the refugee appeal division. Under this system, when people go through the pre-removal risk assessment process, there is no appeal for them to go to. They cannot go through the RAD process. OCASI, an organization in our community, in fact spoke out against that. They were deeply concerned that Bill C-31 would create a two-tier system of refugee protection in Canada, which would result in some claimants being denied the right to appeal. That is what's happening right now under Bill C-97. Why is it okay now and not okay then?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

By the way, Canada used to have a program that allowed for siblings to sponsor each other. That's how I came to Canada. My aunt sponsored my dad and a family of eight to come to Canada, and that's how we made Canada our home. We should actually go back to the system and extend that to the refugees.

Thank you so much.

I do want to turn to the UNHCR for some of my questions. The UNHCR wrote a 20-page report speaking out against the 2012 Harper government's changes to the refugee determination system under Bill C-31. That was back in May of 2012. Amongst other things, there were a number of key recommendations. One of them is that the UNHCR is recommending against the differential treatment of refugees and asylum seekers where it infringes on established rights of refugees. As far as I can see under Bill C-97, there are different treatments of refugees under different streams now. So why is it okay now in this stream and it wasn't okay back in 2012?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I think so. We'll see.

I'll start with you, Dr. Leuprecht. You've written extensively, I think, about human smuggling and some of the issues. I'm going to go on to that, but I just want to touch on some of the comments you were making with regard to the Dublin renegotiation and the coordination of asylum system reform.

It's my understanding that Canada can operate the safe third country agreement with the United States and still be in compliance with our international obligations because of some of the provisions that are in article 19 of the Geneva Convention, which, again, are there to prevent asylum-claim shopping, and because of how the agreement is structured.

It seems to me that division 16 of the budget implementation act, Bill C-97, or whatever it is.... I'm not sure it's going to survive. First of all, I don't think it's going to survive a court challenge in the Canadian context.

It doesn't really impact people. As the minister just said, it's going to impact less than 10% of the people who have entered Canada from the U.S. in the loophole in the safe third country agreement over the last few years and have claimed asylum.

For that reason, my position has been that we actually need to undertake—it's one of the roles Canada could undertake—global asylum system reform, where we're looking at a network of safe third country agreements. We could use international fora to really lead a discussion on what constitutes a safe third country and what monitoring agreements need to be in place in order to ensure that they happen over a long period of time.

I don't think division 16 is that; I think it's a last-minute shortcut—that's kind of how I read it—that probably isn't going to work. Would you say that this assessment is correct or is in the right ballpark?

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

Thank you for coming to this third round of the 158th meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where we're discussing part 4, division 16 of Bill C-97, the 2019 budget implementation act. We just finished meeting with Minister Blair and ministerial officials on this part of the budget.

We'd like to thank Christian Leuprecht, professor in the department of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada; Nafiya Naso, from the Canadian Yazidi Association; and Jean-Nicolas Beuze, a frequent flyer to our committee now, from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and its representative in Canada, for being with us today.

Mr. Leuprecht, if you are well settled after your late train, I'll begin with you or we can begin somewhere else.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'll just take that for a spin.

If, in that scenario I highlighted, you are saying to the person, “Okay, we won't reject you—you will now go to IRCC to be assessed under the PRRA process”, isn't that a duplication of work, when you already know that Australia has this history? Hence, I mention the point that's been raised by the Auditor General about duplication. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. You have people applying for an expedited process. In the meantime, they're still just being processed regularly. It turns out that the expedited process is not any faster than a regular process.

Here you are setting up another system to deal with this dedicated group of people, effectively, as far as I can tell, creating a duplication in process. I'm not quite sure how efficient it would be. Maybe in numerical terms, if we diverted 3,500 cases to this other process, it would seem to lessen the demand on the IRB. The IRB, even by doing that, still has over 40,000 cases before it, and the IRB isn't funded adequately to do the job. The whole point of the Auditor General's report speaks to the inability of the government to ensure that the IRB has rapid access to resources to process claims. This really doesn't solve the problem. The lack of resources does not really solve the problem.

I have another question that I would like to ask. I'm not sure if I missed it when I went to the bathroom.

You have a provision under this bill that would allow the government to bar the issuance of temporary visas to all citizens of a country if that country refuses to issue passports to some of its citizens. So, effectively, you would punish a group of people from a particular nation if that government is refusing to issue passports to some of its citizens.

Under what circumstances do you anticipate this being used? Why was this actually put in Bill C-97?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

No. Even if they did make a bona fide claim, even if they just made a claim, by virtue of the fact that they made a claim in the U.S. under this system, under Bill C-97, they would be rejected.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Sure.

I asked this of the minister about clause 306 of Bill C-97, which is to make an individual ineligible to make a refugee claim if he or she has made a claim in another country, one of the Five Eyes countries that we have sharing agreements with. An individual in this situation would be permitted to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. If this provision were implemented, what effects do you foresee it having on the volume of pre-removal risk assessment applications received by IRB? I know currently the minister had said about 3,000 or 3,500 as to the irregular...but would this also affect those who fly in or perhaps those people whom we potentially see in terms of the DACA deadline that's looming in the U.S., who have made claims in the States? The States may otherwise deem them ineligible for the U.S., but they have made claims there.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll try to get through this as quickly as possible. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. I'm happy to speak regarding our asylum system and border enforcement proposals, which we have included in Bill C-97.

Mr. Chair, we are in a world that is experiencing unprecedented levels of migration. The United Nations Refugee Agency has estimated that there are approximately 258 million people who are now on the move globally, including economic migrants. However, 25.4 million of those individuals are deemed to be refugees, those who are fleeing war and persecution and are seeking protection.

Like many other countries in the world—almost every other safe country in the world—Canada has seen an increase in migration. The growth in global migration suggests that a higher number of asylum seekers is likely to continue, and points to a need to continue to ensure that our borders and asylum system are well-managed to meet our international and Canadian legal obligations.

It's imperative that we maintain a refugee protection system that is predicated on two important principles: fairness and compassion. Budget 2019 has proposed to invest $1.18 billion over a five-year period, starting in 2019-20, with $55 million per year ongoing to enhance the integrity of Canada's borders and our asylum system. These investments also support the government's border enforcement strategy. They will increase the asylum system's capacity to handle higher volumes of claims in order to provide timely protection to refugees and ensure that a failed asylum claimant is removed quickly and compassionately from our country.

The border enforcement strategy includes detecting and discouraging the misuse of our visa system by preventing travel to Canada by individuals who may not be legitimate temporary visa applicants. This means investing significantly in intelligence gathering and trend analysis to limit the number of Canadian visas issued to people who would use a Canadian visa only to establish themselves permanently in Canada.

We are also continuing to work with our international partners to share information and trend analysis that may impact visa issuance; are significantly increasing the interdiction of would-be irregular migrants abroad; engaging recalcitrant countries in support of removal operations by obtaining their co-operation in a timely way for the issuance of travel documents for failed asylum claimants after they have exhausted all legal recourse in Canada; and we are also discouraging would-be irregular migrants via targeted outreach, by correcting misinformation and providing the facts about Canada's asylum system, to make sure that people understand our laws and how this system works.

Mr. Chair, the border enforcement strategy will also maintain the integrity of Canada's border. We are investing in an ongoing building of capacity for interceptions between ports of entry as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police continues to increase its capabilities at key locations at the border and invest in new border technology equipment.

We are putting in place contingency measures to ensure that we are ready to respond to any potential increase in the number of irregular migrants, and we have introduced legislative changes, which we believe will improve our ability to manage flows along the border in the event of any increase and influx. This includes, for example, an amendment that will eliminate the three-day time period for officials to determine if an individual is eligible to make an asylum claim before the claim is automatically referred to the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. Removing this requirement will give the government greater flexibility to manage volumes at the border and will ensure that everyone is examined properly and in a fair way.

We are also putting in place measures to discourage irregular migration by those who try to make multiple claims in different countries—and this is described in the BIA legislative change. Just like other existing ineligibilities, these individuals will be barred from accessing the Immigration and Refugee Board. Instead, they will have access to an enhanced pre-removal risk assessment, or the PRRA, prior to removal, to ensure that they are not returned to a situation of risk.

Mr. Chair, I think it's very important to emphasize that no one who has been barred from accessing the IRB as a result of this new measure will be removed without a PRRA hearing. This proposed measure will also help lessen the caseload at the IRB, while ensuring that everyone receives fair treatment before any removals take place.

Mr. Chair, we maintain public confidence in our system by treating those who cross irregularly in exactly the same way as those who currently do so at regular points of entry, as a means of eliminating any incentive or perception of unfair advantage.

In addition, we're continuing to engage the United States to modernize and enhance the safe third country agreement. The Government of Canada has been in continual contact with the U.S. government on issues related to our shared border.

I also advise you that I have recently met with numerous stakeholders, including U.S. members of Congress, Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security officials, and we are seeking to enhance U.S. co-operation to address irregular migration challenges, including the modernization and enhancement of the safe third country agreement to the mutual benefit of both countries.

Canada and the U.S. share a mutual interest in ensuring the orderly handling of asylum claims while protecting the safety and security of our citizens and respecting the rights of those who are fleeing persecution.

We are investing in an asylum system that will be fast, fair and final. We are increasing funding for the asylum system as a whole to process higher volumes of claims. This will allow the IRB to make decisions on up to 50,000 asylum claims and 13,500 appeals by fiscal year 2021. With this additional funding the board will be able to finalize more decisions, thus reducing wait times for those in need of protection, and leading to faster, more efficient removal of failed claimants.

I would also note that in recognition of the increasing volumes of asylum claims, we're investing more in settlement funding as more people will be given protected person status. Given that protected persons are eligible for settlement services such as language training, this investment is an investment in the future of Canada.

In addition, we are increasing funding to allow for timely removal of individuals who are found not to be in genuine need of protection, and we are taking measures to expedite the removal of failed claimants who cross irregularly into Canada.

Finally, with the budget 2019 investments and the legislative proposal that I bring before you today, Canada will continue to respect its international obligations for people who are legitimately fleeing persecution, and will achieve finality in our asylum system.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome your questions.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Nick Whalen]

It being 3:30, I call to order the 158th meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Today we begin our consideration of part 4, division 16, of Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

For this first session, we have Minister Blair and his officials with us. My understanding is that Minister Blair has a presentation of a little less than seven minutes. We will start immediately with that and, hopefully, we can get our full 51 minutes of questioning in.

Minister Blair.

[Sara Wiebe]

When we were preparing to consult with industry, we looked at the different models around the world, as I mentioned. We looked at, for example, the transportation security agency in the United States. They have a model whereby they have the regulatory instrument and the operations in the same organization.

We didn't think that was something that works for Canada. I think we talked a little bit earlier about the Nav Canada experience. We felt it would be better for us to have the regulator separate from the operations.

We also took a look at different experiences in the United Kingdom and in Australia, for example. I'm just going to look at Dave to make sure I'm saying this correctly.

In the United Kingdom, the airports run the operations of the security screening and it's the airport that then gathers the fees and includes it in their other fees they collect, such as landing fees.

We also looked at the models that Australia has, where the airports run it, but the government collects the fees.

We were aware of the different experiences around the world and looked at how we could apply them to the Canadian experience. You've heard us say repeatedly that Canada is unique. Canada is such a large country with different regions. We have a very dense population along the U.S. border and a very sparse population in the north and some other regions. We have airports across the country. If you look at a model whereby the airports would run it, our concern was that this could create an inconsistency in terms of how all of these different airports in Canada would run airport security screenings.

Taking a look at the different experiences, we came back and again looked at the experience that we had with Nav Canada. We came back to the recommendation currently in Bill C-97, which is that we take the recipe created by the creation Nav Canada.

[Kim Moody, Director, Canadian Tax Advisory, Moodys Gartner Tax Law]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. My name is Kim Moody. I'm a chartered professional accountant and director of Canadian tax advisory services at Moodys Gartner Tax Law in Calgary. I have a very long history of serving the Canadian tax profession, with a variety of leadership positions.

Bill C-97, as you know, is a 367-page bill that contains measures that are both tax and non-tax in subject matter. Accordingly, my brief comments will be restricted to my practice area, which is tax, and specifically to the tax content or lack thereof of Bill C-97 as it relates to the March 19 budget.

From a tax perspective, there was some content in the budget that was good, like the changes to the specified corporate income rules; amendments to the change of use rules in section 45 of the Income Tax Act; and positive changes to the registered disability savings plans, although much more work needs to be done in this area especially as it relates to the use of trust for people with disabilities.

However, I believe that the budget and Bill C-97 are noteworthy for two broad reasons: one, what the budget and Bill C-97 do not contain, and two, the journalism tax incentives. Accordingly, I'll restrict my comments to those.

What do the budget and Bill C-97 not contain? The first thing is targeted and broad measures to deal with competitive concerns. While some have argued vigorously that the accelerated tax depreciation numbers for M and P equipment and certain green equipment and accelerated first year depreciation claims introduced in the fall economic update have solved or gone a long way to competing with our U.S. friends who are benefiting from a massive package of tax reforms, I would argue strongly that is not the case.

I live and see it every day with Canadian private businesses scrambling to remain competitive. Many are expanding their businesses into the U.S. and bringing capital with them. After 11 months of the government saying it is not going to respond in a knee-jerk fashion to U.S. tax reform, the fall economic statement measures, which introduced accelerated depreciation measures, were disappointing.

As Jack Mintz and Philip Bazel wrote in the Canadian Tax Journal last month:

Overall, a much deeper corporate and personal tax reform was needed to deal with the many competitiveness issues raised by the US tax reform for Canada. Accelerated depreciation focused only on a narrow set of issues, and not necessarily the right ones.

I agree. Many were waiting for additional measures in the March 19 budget, only to be disappointed again. There was nothing. To be clear, the package of tax reform measures released by the U.S. is historical in its breadth and in its impact to U.S. businesses. By any measure, including my anecdotal experience with my firm's clients, it is significantly impacting in a negative way Canadian businesses' ability to remain competitive.

Corporate and personal tax rate reductions should have been at the top of the list of considerations for competitiveness responses.

The second highlight-reel omission from the budget and Bill C-97 was the fact that there was no announcement with respect to the government taking the large initiative to undergo comprehensive tax review and reform.

As you know and I'm sure you've heard many times, numerous credible bodies like CPA Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others have been requesting for a long period of time a fresh and comprehensive look at how Canada raises necessary revenues to provide good government. I agree. The last time Canada had a comprehensive review of its tax systems was the Royal Commission on Taxation, which released its landmark six volume report with recommendations in 1966 after approximately four years of studies.

I'm sure some of you were not even born when that commission released its report. I certainly wasn't. Such recommendations were studied and debated for a lengthy period following its release, and it ultimately was the impetus for many of the foundational changes introduced in 1972 tax reform.

While limited form studies—and an embarrassing attempt at reform that arose from the July 18, 2017, private corporation tax proposals—have been completed since 1972, nothing comprehensive has been undertaken since the royal commission. Accordingly, since 1972, our Income Tax Act has become a patchwork quilt of changes. However, a patchwork quilt can quickly become busy and complex, and there is no doubt that our current income tax statute is just that: overly complex and busy. It's time for a fresh quilt.

To those who say to be careful what we wish for or, worse yet, Canada is not ready for comprehensive tax review or reform, I say this: Canadians are a lot smarter and well-intentioned than you are giving them credit for. The average Canadian simply wants a tax system that works for all. It's time that this important initiative be undertaken and it was extremely disappointing that the budget did not address this.

Number two is the journalism tax incentives. As you know—and I won't repeat the budget measures because you all know them—these measures are horrible and a threat to our country's free press, given the likelihood that some of our country's media will likely be incentivized to receive these tax goodies and perhaps cater to big so-called donors.

As respected journalist Andrew Coyne stated in his March 20, 2019, article in the Financial Post about these measures, “There are any number of objections to the government getting into the game of propping up failing news organizations: that taking money from the people we cover will place us in a permanent and inescapable conflict of interest”, and he goes on to criticize. I very much agree.

Can you not see how dangerous this is and how littered with problems these so-called incentives are, as are having a so-called independent panel to pick winners and losers and using an overly complex tax system to administer these indoctrination instruments? Our charitable sector already has significant tax issues, as we heard from the first panel this morning, and is long overdue for a thorough review and rethink. These incentives will add a new class of charity that will no doubt compound these problems.

While I acknowledge that our country's journalism industry is certainly struggling and that Canadians need to have unbiased and truthful news articles provided to them, perhaps a thorough review of what other countries around the world are doing to try to protect, support and preserve this crucial industry should be done before these poorly thought-out proposals are implemented. It seems to me that the crucial aspect that has harmed our country's journalism industry tremendously is the fact that Internet giants such as Google and Facebook have sucked away tremendous advertising dollars from our country's newspapers without producing original content.

Is it time to target these companies like France has? France has recently proposed a 3% tax on the French revenues of Internet giants. When the proposals were released, the French finance minister stated that the estimated tax will raise about 500 million euros, but that should increase quickly. He also said the tax will not affect companies that are directly selling their own products online. It will mostly affect companies that use consumers' data to sell online advertising.

The French finance minister stated, “This is about justice. These digital giants use our personal data, make huge profits out of these data...then transfer the money somewhere else without paying their fair amount of taxes.” It's hard to disagree that there is a problem with Internet giants using personal data to then deploy online advertising. Beyond the obvious privacy concerns, such methods greatly harm our Canadian journalists.

Will a tax like that introduced by France solve the problems facing our country's journalism industry? Likely not. A Wall Street Journal article from last weekend highlights how dire the situation of the newspaper industry is in the United States. It seems to me that the Canadian industry is in similar dire straits. Accordingly, a targeted response that deals with the root causes of the industry issues is a better response.

With respect to the current journalism tax incentives in Bill C-97, these so-called incentives should have no place in our democracy.

Thank you for your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Carole Saab, Executive Director, Policy and Public Affairs, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all.

We are pleased to have this opportunity to explore budget 2019, especially the tools that it provides to municipal governments to help them build a better life for families and workers in Canada.

I'm Carole Saab. I'm the head of policy and public affairs for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I am joined today by my colleague, Chris Boivin, who is the managing director of FCM's green municipal fund.

FCM's 2,000 municipal members represent more than 90% of all Canadians. These are the governments that are closest to people's everyday needs and challenges. When the federal government works with them directly, municipalities deliver cost-effective solutions that work. That's why successive governments have taken steps that empower municipalities to do more for Canadians, steps like allocation-based public transit funding. That's already empowering cities to lead major system expansions.

Even so, budget 2019 stands out as a turning point. The budget takes our federal-municipal partnership and fundamentally elevates it to build better lives.

This budget strengthens our federal-municipal partnership because it's the surest way to improve the living conditions of our fellow Canadians.

For instance, there is this budget's unprecedented investment in rural broadband infrastructure. This implements the urgent, front-line advice of FCM and our rural members.

I'll note that Bill C-97 enacts legislation for the national housing strategy, a generational priority for our communities.

This budget also builds on the gas tax fund, or GTF, transfer. FCM worked with successive governments to launch the GTF, then make it permanent and ultimately index it with a 2% escalator. It's our most reliable infrastructure funding tool. Municipalities can turn every dollar into real outcomes, such as better roads, bridges and public transit; better water, waste and energy systems, and better places to live, work and raise our families.

In Ontario's Clearview township, GTF funds powered a new affordable transit service linking residents to grocery stores, parks, retirement homes, schools and clinics.

In Granisle, B.C., a new biomass boiler is reducing emissions and saving money by heating the village office, arena, elementary school, curling rink, fire hall, public works office and tourist information centre.

The City of Terrebonne, Quebec, is building a modern and safe pedestrian and cycling trail next to a busy street, thanks to predictable long-term gas tax funding.

The gas tax fund is proof that when you put tools directly in local hands, we build better lives for Canadians.

The GTF's one Achilles heel is its scale. Every year it leaves key projects unfunded. Budget 2019 recognizes this by doubling this year's GTF transfer to move more local projects forward. In short, this budget doubles down on working directly with municipalities to achieve national economic and quality-of-life objectives. There are no delays or roadblocks. This is direct fuel for projects that build better lives for Canadians.

This same principle, which underlies the objective of providing tools directly to Canadians, is at the heart of a second element of budget 2019. Over the past two decades, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Green Municipal Fund, or GMF, has funded 1,250 local sustainable development projects. These projects have eliminated 2.5 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and have enabled the citizens of our country to enjoy a safer and more affordable life.

I should also point out that we have achieved these GMF results while preserving every dollar received from the federal government.

Budget 2019 substantially scales up FCM's mission to drive cost-saving energy efficiency across Canada through the green municipal fund, and it extends FCM programming that boosts local asset management capacity. Practically, this means greener community buildings that cost less to run, from social housing to libraries to local arenas. It also means making it more affordable for hard-working families to retrofit their own homes through smart local financing programs that will also reduce their energy bills. It means good jobs in communities across Canada. Once again, it means working directly with municipalities to get things done for Canadians.

Naturally, we want to see the budget implementation act move forward so that important work can move forward, but we want to see the principle that this budget implements continue to guide Canada's federal government moving forward. That's the principle of working together directly as orders of government to build better lives.

On behalf of our president, Vicki-May Hamm, and FCM's 2,000 members, I thank you very much for the opportunity and look forward to taking your questions.

[Francis Bradley, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Electricity Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Francis Bradley, and I am the chief operating officer of the Canadian Electricity Association, or CEA.

CEA is the national voice of electricity. Our members include generation, transmission and distribution companies, as well as technology and service providers from across the country.

The sector employs 81,000 Canadians and contributes $30 billion to Canada's GDP. Over 80% of Canada's electricity generation is non-emitting, making it one of the cleanest in the world. In fact, the Canadian electricity sector has already reduced GHG emissions by 30% since 2005.

Electricity will play an essential role as Canada transitions to a low-carbon economy. The electricity sector is uniquely positioned to help advance Canada's clean energy future, and the measures in Bill C-97 help this.

The 2019 federal budget and 2018 fall economic statement included a number of significant measures for the electricity sector.

The budget's measures to encourage the purchase and use of electric vehicles will help electrify the transportation sector—a low-hanging fruit for significant GHG reductions. These come at a time when EVs are increasingly a consumer expectation, including for reasons beyond environmental benefits.

Consumer purchase incentives and business writeoffs will help to get more EVs on the road, and funding to install charging infrastructure in workplaces, apartments and public parking garages will make sure that everyone has a place to charge them.

The budget's investment in energy efficiency measures in buildings, which will be administered through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, is a significant step forward. Our sector is always very happy when customers can find new ways to use less of our product and use it more efficiently. Doing so has real advantages for the users of the building, but it also reduces the need and the pressure for expansion of electricity grids. A kilowatt not used is cheaper than producing a new one.

Our industry was also pleased to see the budget include the creation of a new Canadian centre for energy information, a central repository for national energy data that will compile various sources into a single, easy-to-use website.

In total, almost $1.5 billion was included in new spending on these important initiatives.

Cybersecurity, though, is also receiving significant funding in the budget. There's an ever-increasing threat from cyber-attacks. We're seeing that in our sector, and this helps us keep pace.

Beyond the budget, the CEA is very pleased to see the government move forward with its first piece of regulatory modernization legislation, particularly given that it includes amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act that will facilitate the expansion of new technologies such as EV fast chargers and adaptive streetlights.

It's no secret that technology often moves much faster than legislation, and electricity meters are an example of this.

The CEA is eager to work with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Measurement Canada to prioritize some early areas of focus in order to enable technologies such as EV DC fast charging that are essential to Canada's clean energy future. This will help Canadians to make the clean energy choices they want to make.

In summation, Bill C-97 takes steps forward that allow Canadians to make choices that are more sustainable, take advantage of new technologies, and can help reduce costs and increase convenience. Central to all of these is Canada's safe, sustainable and reliable electricity system. We look forward to working with government to continue to leverage these advantages.

Thank you.

[John McKenna, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Transport Association of Canada]

Good afternoon.

My name is John McKenna. I'm President of the Air Transport Association of Canada.

ATAC has represented Canada's commercial air transport industry since 1934. We have approximately 180 members engaged in all levels of commercial aviation operating in every region of Canada.

We welcome the opportunity to present our comments on Bill C-97, as the privatization of passenger screening in Canada is a key aspect of the passenger experience.

Let me state from the outset that we support the transformation of CATSA, or in this case the creation of a new DSA, if it is to be granted the necessary tools both to maximize efficiencies both in the short term and to be able to keep pace with the growth of our industry. We wholeheartedly endorse the comments made before this committee by the National Airlines Council of Canada on April 30.

Two years ago Transport Canada invited us to comment on the governance and funding models it was considering for what was then referred to as CATSA 2.0. The consultation identified four models, ranging from an enhanced and modernized current model wherein CATSA would remain a Crown corporation with a dedicated air carrier security charge; a non-appropriated Crown corporation wherein CATSA would remain a Crown corporation but would gain new responsibilities to set and collect fees to directly fund its operations and where fees could potentially be differentiated among airports; and an industry-led entity, the Nav Canada model, which would transition CATSA to an independent non-share and not-for-profit entity that would set its own fees and business plans. In the latter model, the government would continue to set security standards and regulations and would inspect operations. Finally, there was a designated delivery by airports model wherein airport authorities would become responsible for security screening and recovery of the costs from airport users to fund operations at their respective individual airports.

It was obvious from the very first meeting with Transport Canada and Finance Canada officials that the NAV CANADA model was going to be preferred. It was so obvious that, shortly afterwards, CATSA retained the services of John Crichton, who led the NAV CANADA negotiating team throughout that 18-month transaction process.

Today we are faced with a reversal of the successful Nav Canada process. While the bill establishing Nav Canada was drafted at the end of the negotiation process and reflected the collected stakeholder recommendations, the process we are faced with now is quite the opposite. A simple construction analogy would be that the roof and walls are being put up before the foundation is set.

Given the short time at my disposal, I will only comment on the financial impact on passengers and our industry. A price tag of $500 million is being shamefully attached to this privatization in an effort by the government to cash in on CATSA's book value. Again, to use a construction analogy, we could say that the government wants to sell back to passengers the house they have already paid for twice. Twice because CATSA has generated well over $500 million in surpluses over the CATSA budget allocations even in the past five years.

Transport Canada tells us that the book value price is non-negotiable. We believe that anything other than a nominal price of one dollar is not acceptable and could very well compromise the process. A solid precedent was set when the government divested itself of hundreds of airports across Canada under a previous Liberal government.

Another concern is that to pay this shameful price tag, the new DSA will have to include the debt payment when settling the new passenger screening charge. Need I remind the members of this committee that Canada already has one of the highest, if not the highest, aviation security charge in the world?

Finally, when asked, the government did not deny that it would probably seek compensation for the loss of the hundreds of millions generated by the ATSC surpluses. This is probably why Bill C-97 doesn't abolish the ATSC currently being collected. If not through the current ATSC, added to the new fees charged by the DSA, how would the loss of this general revenue be compensated if not by additional fees and charges to our passengers and carriers?

I have only raised some of the serious industry financial concerns in this matter, but that is not to say that we don't have operational and governance concerns that need to be addressed. Containing the costs to the public levied by the DSA is critical to maintaining Canada's competitiveness in the North American economy and to address the leakage to the U.S. market of travellers seeking cheaper fares. lt is government's responsibility to ensure that its policies support rather than hinder the competitiveness of the air transport services in Canada, much in the same way it continues to do so for passenger rail travel.

Once set, the new DSA will be in place for the next 10 to 20 years. Canadians deserve that this process not be governed by an electoral agenda and that all concerned take the time required to develop a strong, efficient, autonomous, transparent and well-governed model. We are not satisfied at this point that this is the case.

Thank you.

[Nancy Fitchett, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority]

I will be quick, thank you.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Nancy Fichett, Acting Vice-President of Corporate Affairs and Chief Financial Officer at the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, also known as CATSA. I'm pleased to be here with my colleague Lisa Hamilton, Vice-President of Corporate Services, general counsel and corporate secretary.

CATSA is an agent Crown corporation funded by parliamentary appropriations and accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport. As Canada's designated national security screening authority, CATSA is mandated by the Government of Canada to protect the public by securing critical elements of the air transportation system.

CATSA is supportive of the security screening services commercialization act contained in Bill C-97. We will continue to support Transport Canada in the transition to a not-for-profit designated screening authority while maintaining seamless operations and focus on communication with our employees.

Ms. Hamilton and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have that fall within our purview.

Thank you.

[Colin Stacey, Acting Director General, Pilotage Act Review, Department of Transport]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you about the proposed amendments to the Pilotage Act included in Bill C-97.

Marine pilotage is essential to ensuring safe navigation and preventing marine incidents and thus to protecting coastal environments. Much of the Pilotage Act has remained largely unchanged since it was created in 1972. An independent review of the act completed in spring 2018 under the oceans protection plan identified the need to modernize the legislation.

Building on the review's recommendations, the amendments in Bill C-97 would strengthen the safety, efficiency and transparency of Canada's pilotage system.

Let me begin with the amendments that would improve the safety regime. The act currently creates a system in which each pilotage authority is responsible for both delivering the services, on the one hand, and regulating pilotage requirements and enforcement, on the other.

Amendments transferring responsibility for developing regulations from the pilotage authorities to the minister of transport would separate the regulatory and service delivery roles and establish a nationally coherent pilotage system aligned with the Canadian marine safety and security regime.

The minister would also be responsible for issuing licences and certificates and for the oversight and enforcement of the pilotage system. The enforcement regime would be enhanced, bringing it into line with other marine safety legislation.

The reinforced compliance system would include administrative monetary penalties, which would allow Transport Canada officials to conduct regular oversight and to work with stakeholders to ensure compliance, and maximum fines would be increased for summary convictions for more serious contraventions, along with possible prison terms.

Furthermore, the minister would obtain the authority to issue interim and exemption orders and direction to pilots to deal with exceptional circumstances and promote innovation.

Where efficiency is concerned, the act currently requires pilotage authorities' fees to be set in regulations, resulting in unnecessary administrative burden and delays. The amendments would allow the pilotage authorities to directly set tariffs without regulations, subject to requirements for consultation and a process for stakeholders to submit objections to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

To augment transparency, the act would prohibit pilots, users or suppliers of pilotage services from being on pilotage authorities' boards of directors.

Furthermore, service contracts between pilotage authorities and pilots' corporations would be made publicly available, as these have implications for other stakeholders.

Amendments would prevent regulatory matters from being addressed in those service contracts, to ensure that regulations are established based on a thorough assessment of risks and consultation.

A new purpose and principles section in the act would increase national consistency and clarify the pilotage mandate. Moreover, arbitrators would be required to consider these principles in final offer selection processes between pilotage authorities and pilot corporations.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments address the most significant issues identified in the Pilotage Act review. The amendments provide for a stronger, modernized pilotage system with increased national consistency and greater efficiency and accountability.

I would like to thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions on these proposed legislative amendments.

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

What would have really changed the situation in a significant way would have been a change in the order of priority of creditors.

A large majority of the people and experts consulted, including those from the union movement, like you, supported this measure. Are you disappointed that it isn't part of the provisions of Bill C-97 that amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act?

[Chris Roberts]

The relatively modest amendments in Bill C-97 with respect to the CCAA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act would have had little impact in the case of Sears.

The problem in the Sears Canada fiasco was that despite the pension plan having a funding deficit since 2007, the directors of that company authorized a series of very significant dividend payments. While the company was within the requirements of solvency funding rules with respect to its pension plan deficit, there were no other restrictions, and indeed, no requirement on supervisors, that is, pension regulatory and superintendent bodies, to track what was occurring and intervene, despite the fact that the company was clearly being put at risk and the ability of the sponsor to make good on the pension deficit was being placed in question.

That's a long answer, but the short answer is no, I don't think any of the very modest amendments being proposed in this bill would have addressed that situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just hold on. I was ruling on your question. It's not on the budget implementation act. We're not going down a political attack road in this discussion.

What is your point of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm going to have to have you stick to the budget implementation act. We're not going down a political road here in terms of this discussion. There is a lot of information in the budget implementation act, so you're going to have to keep your discussion related to the BIA.

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

The questions and the innuendo on this have nothing to do with the BIA legislation, Chair.

[Alain Arseneault]

I believe that the compliance regime proposed in Bill C-97 is an extremely rigorous process in which Transport Canada and the minister are given very well designed compliance powers. By their very nature, they will guarantee the levels of safety that Canadians expect. You can see it all in the new compliance regime.

Also, by protecting the very nature of the pilotage service as set out in the current act, including the pilots' independence in decision-making, we can ensure that marine transportation in Canada will be conducted safely and with environmental protection, which is a concern that Canadians rightly have.

[Amanjit Lidder, Senior Vice-President, Taxation Services, MNP LLP]

Good morning, Chairman, and members of the finance committee.

The fall economic statement and budget introduces measures to address competitiveness and affordability and signals that the government has taken first steps to addressing taxpayer concerns. We believe, however, that Canada must do more.

For over 60 years, MNP has been dedicated to our clients' success. Today we proudly serve more than 180,000 businesses and 19,000 farms throughout Canada. We are the third-largest tax filer in the country.

Our clients are concerned with how their businesses can stay competitive. In addition, they struggle to cope with the increasing complexity and administrative burden of the tax system. They're worried about how affordable Canada will be, especially for the next generation.

In terms of competitiveness, we note that the budget and Bill C-97 contain several improvements to capital cost allowance, scientific research and experimental development, legislative changes to section 143 that promote tax fairness, and small business deduction relief for farming and fishing businesses. These are important changes and initiatives on competitiveness. Of note, however, is the fact that the new accelerated capital cost allowance lacks parity with the recent tax reform in the United States. It does not go far enough to provide Canadian businesses with a competitive advantage.

Further, we continue to recommend lowering the combined corporate tax rate to a more modest 20%, and a combined personal tax rate below 50%. With a top marginal tax rate of 53.5%, Canada's is the fourth highest among OECD countries, which hurts our competitiveness.

In terms of the small business deduction, we are pleased that the government corrected the unintended consequences to the agriculture and fishing industries related to the 2016 legislative changes. However, there are other industry groups that were also inadvertently affected. We urge the government to ensure that Canadian start-ups and private enterprises are not subject to the proposed employee stock option cap. These businesses rely on stock options to attract and retain talent in their formative years, and removing access to stock options would severely impact their ability to compete in the global marketplace.

Affordability is clearly a growing concern for Canadians. It's an issue that dominates the daily headlines. MNP has a quarterly national study on affordability that shows that just under half of Canadian families are within $200 of financial insolvency every month. To try to address this issue, the budget and Bill C-97 include the following: targeted support for first-time homebuyers, a Canada training credit and an incentive to make zero-emission vehicles more affordable.

We commend the government for focusing on these areas and believe measures could be further enhanced. We find that many first-time homebuyers rely on their parents to help them with their down payments. Parents often take a tax hit in order to do so. We suggest that further incentives be contemplated to provide relief for parents, such as using their RRSPs for their children's homebuyers' plan. Alternatively, the government could consider simplifying related party loans specifically tied to the purchase of a home.

Governments are striving to make education affordable. The Canada training credit helps build our future workforce and ensures workers get the training they need. However, education costs remain a burden to many families. We recommend full tuition credit transfers, rather than the current $5,000 annual cap.

Regarding zero-emission vehicles, the incentive helps businesses but could inadvertently impact their employees. These vehicles are generally more expensive, and the standby charge for employees who drive them could become an affordability issue.

We are pleased with the government's commitment to consult on intergenerational transfers of businesses while protecting the integrity and fairness of the tax system. In our practice many families struggle with how to transition their business. In our brief we've shared Tracy and Marc's dilemma of selling their bakery to their daughter versus a third party. The tax system unfairly penalizes them if they sell their business to their daughter.

In summary, we ask that the government commit to introducing policies and tax measures to make Canadian businesses more competitive and improve affordability for Canadians. At the same time, we need to ensure that these measures are simple and do not increase the cost of doing business in Canada.

Tax policy should be fair, certain and predictable.

Together, we have much work to do and we look forward to working with you to ensure Canadian competitiveness and affordability.

Thank you.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I welcome all of you here this morning and thank you for your testimony.

What we do know, what we've learned and what we are aware of is the fact that the Pilotage Act has not been reviewed for a number of decades. It was definitely time to do a review of this act. We've heard from witnesses that they feel it was a comprehensive review and that there were lengthy consultations around the changes that are being prescribed in the BIA.

While we understand all of that, we do think it's interesting that these recommendations are being brought forward in the budget implementation act. We've also heard testimony from some that this translates into quick passage. We've been encouraged to make that happen as a result of the fact that there does appear to be support for the changes that are being suggested in the BIA.

To be very clear, for us, the time frame for this review is quite short. Our recommendations, should we manage to get any passed at this committee, would be sent to the finance committee, which would make the decision—not the Minister of Transport. I think it should be noted that it will be up to the governing members on this committee to agree to put forward any recommendations to the finance committee. However, we will endeavour to ensure that some of your concerns and recommendations are at least proposed here at this committee.

Again, my understanding also is that the wording in the act and the changes that have been made in this act reaffirm our commitment to safety in the industry.

My first question will go to you, Ms. Zatylny. Will these changes to the Pilotage Act make Canadian ports even safer?

[Michael McGarry, Senior Vice-President, Global Government Affairs, Cruise Lines International Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. On behalf of the 14-member cruise lines of Cruise Lines International Association-North West & Canada, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Pilotage Act contained in Bill C-97.

CLIA represents cruise lines sailing Canada's coastlines from the Atlantic and St. Lawrence Seaway to the Arctic and Pacific coastal waters. Our industry has a major, positive impact on Canada's economy and supports businesses and communities up and down these coastlines.

Crew members and passengers invest in travel, accommodations and supplies as they make their way to and from our ships, and they support local businesses when they spend money on excursions, food, supplies and souvenirs at our many ports of call. Cruise lines boost local businesses as they provision their ships with food and beverages, fuel and other supplies, and they invest in local port services and spend money on ship repairs, maintenance and equipment.

Overall, our industry contributes $3.2 billion every year to Canada's economy, and I believe the clerk has distributed the information I provided that outlines our economic contributions.

The Pilotage Act and Canada's overall pilotage framework have gone largely untouched for almost 50 years, during which our industry has evolved dramatically. Members of the CLIA welcome the government's proposed legislative changes, particularly those that aim to help standardize safety rules, rationalize costs, strengthen governance, support innovation and enhance public transparency.

The cruise industry supports pilotage in Canada as a valuable enhancement to the safety and security of passengers and vessels. We know that pilots will continue to play an important role within Canada's marine safety network.

For CLIA member cruise lines, maritime operational safety, the safety of our guests, and the safety of ports the cruise ships visit are their top priority. CLIA member cruise lines have an exceptional safety record, and as an industry we continue to raise the bar through a continual evolution of enhanced best practices and industry policies.

We join with pilots in their unwavering commitment to safety. While the safety records of the pilotage authorities are strong, improvements are needed with respect to the efficiency of pilotage services. We believe that Canada's modernized pilotage regime must focus on enhancing productivity, adaptability and supporting the adoption of new technologies to help ensure the continued competitiveness of cruise lines in Canada.

We were pleased to see much of this addressed at the outset of these amendments in the proposed purpose statement. Throughout the act's review, CLIA raised concerns about the monopolistic structure of pilotage services and the upward spiral in pilotage costs at a rate that far exceeds the rate of inflation. Our members welcome changes that will bring transparency and impartial decision-making to contracts that determine fees for these mandated services.

The evaluation of risk and risk mitigation in Canadian waters can be very uneven between different pilot regions. CLIA supports removing regulatory functions from the pilotage authorities, bringing them into line with other federal agencies, and freeing them up to focus on safety, efficiency and administering pilot services. We are optimistic that these changes will support greater standardization and consistency in the management of risk.

CLIA appreciates that the voices of our member lines have been included in the long-awaited review of the Pilotage Act, as well as your committee's review of these proposed legislative amendments. Overall, we welcome these changes. We also wish to emphasize that there will be more work to do with respect to the development of a modernized pilotage regulatory framework to give effect to this new legislation and ensure intended outcomes are met.

CLIA looks forward to the opportunity of contributing collaboratively with government throughout this process.

Thank you.

[Chief Darryl Marlowe, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation]

Good morning.

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and the committee, for giving us the opportunity to speak today, regarding Bill C-97.

I'd like to mention that this has been Lutsel K’e's main objective and mission. We have a mandate set by our elders to create and protect our traditional territory around our community within the Northwest Territories.

The first time the government invited the former chief and elder, Pierre Catholique, to come here to do a presentation like the one I'm doing today.... It's been well over 40 years. At that time, the community and the elders weren't ready to pursue a park. Now, after educating ourselves, doing due diligence on behalf of our community and our people and creating a partnership with Canada and GNWT, we're willing to create a national park reserve on our traditional territory. That's why we are here today.

Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation has been working to protect Thaidene Nëné for over 40 years.

Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation has the following objectives with respect to Thaidene Nëné: to recognize and affirm indigenous rights, responsibilities and our treaty relationship with the governments of Canada and Northwest Territories; to protect the natural and cultural landscape of Thaidene Nëné for all time, and for future generations; to share the stewardship and management authority with Canada, using a leading model in the country and in the world; and to foster a sustainable economy, based and rooted in conservation, culture and tourism.

The main reason we want to protect our land is that we want our children's children to have, and to continue to practice, our Dene way of life. This gives them certainty that they are going to be protected in that way, for our culture and our identity

We have done everything that needs to be done on our end to establish Thaidene Nëné, and achieve these objectives. We have concluded establishment agreements with Canada and the GNWT, grown our own management capacity, started local community tourism planning and obtained public and private commitments for long-term sustainable funding for our stewardship responsibilities, including guardianship.

Recently, we had a ratification vote to determine whether our community supported us to go ahead. We had a very high voter turnout. On February 18, 2019, 88% of our membership voted in favour of the establishment of Thaidene Nëné.

We want to get Thaidene Nëné established now, so we can sustain our forward momentum, and fulfill our shared objectives. Bill C-97 is consistent with our vision and objectives, and we encourage smooth passage of this bill, to enshrine Thaidene Nëné in law in advance of the uncertainty of the coming election. LKDFN's long-term funding commitments and the creation of long-term jobs and economic opportunities associated with Thaidene Nëné are dependent upon it.

I want to thank Steven Nitah, our chief negotiator, and our negotiation team, as well. They've been at this for quite some time—over 10 years, or maybe it's closer to 17 years. I want to congratulate him and the team on all the hard work they're doing on behalf of our community members. I'm speaking on behalf of my community, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation in the Northwest Territories.

I would like to give Steven the opportunity to say a few words.

[Chris Roberts, National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

The Canadian Labour Congress is Canada's largest central labour body advocating on behalf of three million workers across Canada. In the brief time I have, I will focus on divisions 5, 6 and 7 of part 4 touching on the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada pension plan, changes to insolvency rules and amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act. I will also touch on the Canada training credit.

I want to begin, however, by commending the government for a budget measure that is not contained in Bill C-97, namely its initial steps toward the implementation of a national pharmacare plan for Canada. Canada's unions are eager to see a universal single-payer system introduced in this country to address significant coverage gaps and the drug affordability crisis facing Canadians.

Turning to retirement benefits, Bill C-97 allows the proactive enrolment of CPP contributors aged 70 and over. The CLC welcomes this initiative as a very positive step. The bill also amends the Old Age Security Act to make improvements to the guaranteed income supplement and allowance for low-income seniors.

Extending the GIS earnings exemption to self-employment income, increasing the full exemption and introducing an additional partial exemption are important improvements that will make a meaningful difference in the lives of low-paid working seniors.

However, the GIS clawback will continue to apply to the first dollar of CPP and pension income, RRSP income, EI benefits and other income in retirement. On these income sources, a 75% or higher effective marginal tax rate continues to apply. For this reason, the CLC urges the government to undertake a comprehensive review of the GIS clawback in the context of all income sources in retirement.

With respect to changes to insolvency rules, in our view, Bill C-97's amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act are inadequate and represent a missed opportunity to prevent the injustice of defined benefit plan members and retirees suffering benefit cuts when sponsors enter insolvency.

Bill C-97 will amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to allow a bankruptcy court to determine whether a share redemption or a payment of dividends in the year prior to the date of bankruptcy was made by an insolvent company or had the effect of making the corporation insolvent. If so, the court can now allow the trustee to recover these amounts. However, this would not have prevented the $1.4 billion in dividend payments approved by the directors of Sears Canada in the years prior to entering insolvency and liquidation in 2017, despite the windup deficit in the pension plan.

There is still no requirement for corporations to notify the pension regulator, much less seek the regulator's authorization if a sponsor with a pension deficit makes a dividend payment or engages in a share repurchase that represents a risk to benefit security.

To address this risk, Ontario introduced the disclosable event regime last year, and regulators in the United States and the United Kingdom have similar powers. The federal government can and must do far more to protect plan members in insolvency. Labour movement has been urging the government to either grant pension claims superpriority status in bankruptcy or introduce mandatory pension insurance in conjunction with provinces and territories.

Turning to continuous learning, Bill C-97 enacts the Canada training credit, part of the new Canada training benefit. The CLC welcomes this lifelong learning benefit; however, we are concerned that the four-week limit on training programs, the 600-hour eligibility requirement and low replacement rates of the EI training support benefit and the fact that the training credit can cover no more than half of tuition and training fees will limit the benefit's effectiveness and reach for low-paid precariously employed workers who most need training opportunities.

With respect to pay transparency, Bill C-97 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to require federally registered public companies to disclose prescribed information regarding the well-being of employees, retirees and pensioners and the diversity of directors and senior management.

The CLC believes that this information should include the ratio between director and senior management compensation and median employee earnings. It should also include total employee compensation and median pensions and pay received by pensioners as well as the funded status of the pension plan.

Thank you, Chair. My time is up. I welcome any questions the committee might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order. We're dealing with Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

We have four organizations as witnesses before us.

We'll start with the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Roberts, national director.

Mr. Roberts, the floor is yours.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order meeting 141 of the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject matter of clauses 225 to 279, in part 4, divisions 11 and 12, of Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

Good morning to everyone. From the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, we have Wendy Zatylny, President. From British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd., we have Roy Haakonson, Captain and President; and Rob Stewart, Captain and Vice-President. From the Corporation des pilotes du Saint-Laurent Central Inc., we have Alain Arseneault, Captain and President. Finally, from the Cruise Lines International Association, we have Michael McGarry, Senior Vice-President, Global Government Affairs.

I understand that there's a conference for pilots happening and that some of them have joined us in the audience today. Welcome to all of you.

We will now move to our witnesses.

Ms. Zatylny, would you like to lead off?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. One of the key reasons this college is being established is so that the end-users, the applicants, will have protection in that process. We heard at our previous committee meetings, in our study on this issue, that there were a lot of situations where the applicants were taken advantage of and cheated in this process.

With that in mind, with Bill C-97 before you and with the establishment of this college, do you think there are sufficient provisions for protecting the end-user, the client? There's a compensation fund being established. Do you think that's sufficient in addressing the concerns that are paramount among the applicants who have had the unfortunate circumstance of having had a bad immigration consultant handle their case?

Perhaps I can start with Andrew.

[David LeBlanc]

—hoping the other person suffers pain. I have faith that you will not be fooled.

Honourable members, Madam Chair, I thank you for allowing Honourable Minister Hussen's recommendations in Bill C-97 for the formation of the college to come to fruition.

In 222 years from now, all of those whom you helped protect today will join me in thanking you as well.

Thank you.

[David LeBlanc, Managing Director, Senior Immigration Consultant, Ferreira-Wells Immigrations Services Inc., As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members.

It is a privilege and honour to have been invited here today, and I am very grateful for this opportunity to talk to you today.

For the past 17 years, I have had the opportunity to help thousands of immigrants come to Canada to study, to work, to immigrate and to bring partners and spouses from overseas. I watched as our very young profession grew and overcame challenges, starting with Mangat in the Federal Court, which allowed us to practise in immigration and citizenship, to where we find ourselves today with your committee.

The work that your committee does is vital. Critical issues were raised and needed the right solution. Time will show that the most worthwhile outcomes will have been realized as a result of your questions and concerns focused in this room. As public protection is centre in your hearts, the recommendations from the Honourable Minister Ahmed Hussen, the department and the course proposed in Bill C-97 are solid, important, timely and the right path to follow.

For practitioners like me, listening to others refer to us RCICs in the same breath as unauthorized agents, recruiters and those who prey upon good, simple folk overseas was quite hurtful. We found ourselves easy, unwitting targets for those who spin, editorialize and promote their own agendas at our expense. Many in this room have said that this is the third kick at the can for the self-regulation of our profession.

Let's examine the facts.

The first regulator, CSIC, appeared on the scene with little due process. They registered as a private corporation for some reason, and when they left, the key perpetrators absconded with a compensation fund of approximately $1.5 million as their parting gift to themselves. The resignation letters of the first directors who jumped ship were the canary in the coal mine, hinting at what the members were in for next. No sane person could ever lay claim to the fact that this was a legitimate regulatory body that had been struck, because our own members were persecuted, oppressed, extorted and denied any due democratic process.

Too many years later, with a lot of abuse in between, Jason Kenney was our ghostbuster, for which I personally am still very grateful. ICCRC was chosen as the successful bid for the new regulator. If you had the chance to attend the first meeting, every single announcement made by Merv Hillier was met with standing applause. It was like the whole group of us had been taken out of a dark coal mine, and we were taking our first breath of fresh air and seeing the sun for the first time in a decade.

Many years on, the flaws of the current model itself are beginning to show: a regulator that had limited resources and no mandate or authority to be able to curtail the tide of unscrupulous practitioners overseas.

Internally, the complaints and disciplines process has become strained and backlogged. The public and our critics began to heap blame on the underfunded fledgling regulator for things they had no control over, responsibility for or sufficient resources to fix. It was impossible to win in the court of public opinion with this structure. Those with their own agendas added spin to discredit good, honest practitioners and the regulator.

With the proposed changes before you now to the regulatory structure, authority, and finally coming under federal statute, ICCRC transitioning into the new college will be able to fulfill the mandate of public protection.

It is unfair to compare a regulator founded in 2011 to the Law Society of Ontario, which was founded in July 1797. A lot can be said for having a 222-year head start. Even the CBA was founded in 1896 and currently has over 37,000 members. That rich history creates a lot of strength in organizational and educational integrity, resources and deep pockets to be able to police those unauthorized to practise, resources that were simply never available to ICCRC. If the historical roles were reversed, I can only imagine that lawyers today would be no further ahead in stemming the tide of overseas sharks than we are today.

I have been blessed with great teachers over the last two decades, including Lorne Waldman, Barbara Jackman, Stephen Green and Chantal Desloges, who was supposed to be here this morning, in their many CBA and law society CPD events and teachings at Seneca. Phil Mooney, Gerd Damitz, Lynn Gaudet, Alli Amlani, who is beside me today, Camilla Jones, Bruce Perreault and numerous other regulated consultants who are skilled, ethical and compassionate practitioners were extremely generous in their sharing of knowledge and best practices and stand as equals alongside our colleagues at the immigration bar.

Whether lawyer or consultant, our most precious gift is our reputation. Those with impeccable character are celebrated far and wide. As for those who undertake sharp practice, their reputation precedes them, as Buddha said, like the shadow of the wheel of an ox cart.

There is an elephant in the room: the sheer vast expanse of unauthorized, unscrupulous agents and recruiters overseas and internationally. It is important to be fair in examining what would truly put an end to this dark shadow and the blight on the immigration profession. Scapegoating our regulator for decades-old overseas issues is like having expectations of emptying the entire Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.

There is also a boy who cries wolf, who has already presented to you at this committee and will be presenting again. Their earnest attempts to huff and puff and blow our house down are as transparent as they are. They now believe their own stories, their own grievances, the grievances that are held tightly, like a lump of coal burning in their own hands—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses. I'm here on behalf of my colleague, Ms. Jenny Kwan. She has asked me to look into a few questions for her.

You are of course all aware of the study in regard to immigration consultants that was completed in 2017. We also heard yesterday that a lot of people who are victimized are those who are amongst the most vulnerable of what would be newcomer groups.

As individuals arriving here, they are coming here in the more precarious or temporary streams of immigration, especially the stream for migrant workers. We have a very complex immigration system, especially for someone who is not used to the laws of our country and the kind of culture we have here. They find it extremely difficult to navigate it by themselves, especially if they don't have fluency in both of our official languages. They need help and advice. That is where you fall in: to provide that.

In many cases, of course, the cost of immigration lawyers is above their ability to pay, but we have heard in many of those cases that once they have signed up with a consultant, they really don't have a choice, even if they feel that something isn't right. They have to swallow those concerns they might have and just see it through.

They've ended up spending a lot of money. They believe they've already arranged employment in Canada. They've done everything the right way. Also, a significant amount of time has passed while they processed through the various stages. I think some of them have noted that there's a fear of.... They don't want to complain or report bad behaviour, because they feel they have everything to lose. I'm talking about the person who is applying. Also, there have been cases where people have tried to speak out, and consultants may have used their position of power to intimidate them and so on.

With respect to the provisions in Bill C-97 in clauses 291 to 300, specifically with regard to applicants, I know you had an exchange with Mr. Ayoub about it being a confidential complaints process, but is there anything else that any of you can add about Bill C-97 and provisions that will provide protection to applicants who do speak out?

[Louis-René Gagnon, As an Individual]

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of Parliament.

My name is Louis-René Gagnon.

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee as an individual.

Let me briefly tell you about my own experience that is directly related to the bill before you today.

I held positions related to policy development, with operational responsibilities at Quebec's immigration department for more than 20 years, including as secretary of the Conseil des relations interculturelles and as director of the Quebec immigration office for the Middle East in Damascus, Syria, from 2007 to 2009. That was during a more pleasant period. I also carried out many missions to select immigrants abroad.

From September 2011 to May 2016, after my retirement from the provincial public service, I taught immigration law at the CEGEP de Saint-Laurent to those wanting to become immigration consultants. Since May 2013, I have held the position that is perhaps most relevant in this case. I am actually a member of the Discipline Committee of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council as a representative of the public. Let me clarify that I am not a consultant. As part of the committee, I have served on more than 250 complaints committees as well as on numerous disciplinary and appeal committees, either as a member or as chair.

I should tell you that I fully support the principle of the bill regarding the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants because I believe that the disciplinary system to which consultants must adhere must be based on a solid legal foundation under an act of the Parliament of Canada specifically designed for them.

In addition, I am pleased that subsection 6(2) of the Act respecting the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants proposed in Bill C-97 gives the college extraterritorial capacity. In my experience, the most serious abuses are in fact predominantly committed abroad. I also welcome section 78, which will allow the college to apply for an injunction to counter the blight of illegally practising the immigration consulting profession.

However, I would like to insist that the various disciplinary panels that will be created under the regulations—which will be approved by the minister—always be composed of two licence holders and a member of the public. A member of the public who is not a consultant is an important guarantee of impartiality. This prevents the image of a professional group whose members would only protect each other or absolve each other of their faults.

I am also pleased that section 9 stipulates that the Official Languages Act applies to the college, since the ICCRC has not always been exactly exemplary in that regard. However, the college will need to be provided with the financial resources required to comply with the legislation.

I consider the governance structure proposed by the bill, which combines both elected and minister-appointed members on the board, to be satisfactory.

I would like to add that, in my opinion, the role of the member of the public is broader than simply defending the consultants' clients. I recently recalled a case where the sentence to be imposed on a consultant who had been convicted of criminal acts was being considered on appeal. To mitigate his sentence, his lawyer said that, in this case, his clients had pushed him to commit those acts, that they too had committed criminal acts and that the public was not involved. However, I remember writing in that decision that the public was actually involved. The public is not limited the clients. A representative of the public must keep in mind the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and look at it in the broadest sense.

Thank you.

I am ready to answer any questions you may have, in French or English.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There are no further questions.

Thank you very much for your presentation. That concludes the time with officials.

We have a small piece of business. There's a sheet handed out. We do need a budget for the subject matter of Bill C-97. The amount requested is $53,900. Does somebody want to move that?

[Michael Nadler, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Michael Nadler. On an interim basis, I'm the chief executive officer of Parks Canada. I'm joined by Kevin McNamee, who is the director of protected areas establishment at Parks Canada.

Thank you kindly for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. We know that this is additional to very busy workloads, and we're grateful for the attention paid to our elements of the budget implementation act this evening.

There are three elements of the act that pertain to Parks Canada. With your patience, Kevin and I can speak to all three in fairly rapid succession and take your questions at the end of each section. Two of these involve amendments to the Canada National Parks Act, and one involves an amendment to the Parks Canada Agency Act.

The first change to the Canada National Parks Act will facilitate the establishment of a new national park reserve in the Northwest Territories called Thaidene Nëné. It's located on the east arm of Great Slave Lake. If you imagine Yellowknife and describe a line roughly straight east, you'll bump into a community called Lutsel K'e. This area is near that community and on the lake. It's one of the most amazing places in the country, and we encourage you to visit.

The amendment relating to that national park reserve will describe the boundaries for the national park reserve. Plus, it will provide for the conduct of some activities in the park that support traditional indigenous and northern lifestyles.

The second change to the Canada National Parks Act will adjust the boundaries of two ski areas in Banff National Park. These are the Mount Norquay and Lake Louise ski areas. These boundary changes reflect guidelines for development and use that were negotiated with each operator and were also subject to public consultation, input and environmental impact assessment. Incorporating the boundary changes into schedule 5 of the act will provide the two ski resorts with the business certainty that they need to conduct their operations and make ongoing investments in each of the resorts.

The last item is a change to the Parks Canada Agency Act that will shift Parks Canada from a two-year appropriation cycle to a one-year appropriation cycle. This was actually proposed in budget 2014 but was not legislated. It has come back for budget 2019 and forms part of the budget implementation act for 2019.

Mr. Chair, with your permission, I will turn to Kevin McNamee, who can speak to the first item, which is the Thaidene Nëné national park reserve.

[John Murray, President and Chief Executive Officer, Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is John Murray. I'm the president and chief executive officer of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council.

I'd like to begin today by thanking members of the committee for allowing me and my colleague, Michael Huynh, the council's director of professional conduct, to appear before you regarding the proposed legislation to establish the college of immigration and citizenship consultants under Bill C-97.

As you know, the council is the national self-regulatory body that serves and protects the public by overseeing licensed immigration and citizenship consultants and international student advisers.

Since joining the council last November, I've come to appreciate the valuable services immigration consultants provide to immigrants coming to Canada. Understanding the complexities and the nuances of our immigration system is not easy. Immigration consultants provide valuable assistance to new Canadians, helping them to navigate the immigration system during what is usually one of the most stressful and uncertain times in their lives. Immigration consultants also offer consumers freedom of choice, providing advice and services at a reasonable cost.

Since your 2017 study, this committee has been quite familiar with the role of immigration consultants. The report on consultants tabled by the committee in June 2017 made several recommendations to address the challenges facing both the profession and the council. Challenges cited in that report included delays in resolving complaints, inadequate consumer awareness measures and lax educational standards. You've discussed many of these today.

A key recommendation of that report was the creation of an independent public interest body empowered by federal statute to regulate and govern the immigration consulting profession. We at the council could not agree more on the need for federal legislative authority, and we were thrilled to see Bill C-97 take this important step towards modernizing the legislative framework applicable to immigration consultants.

If passed, this bill would transition the council into the new college of immigration and citizenship consultants, and give the college enhanced authority to investigate, obtain important evidence and compel witnesses to testify at disciplinary hearings—three things we currently lack. These new tools will also go a long way towards helping to protect prospective immigrants from fraudulent practitioners.

Given the past challenges within the industry, I can appreciate that there may be some, even some on this committee today, who may be asking why we should give the council the opportunity to transition into this new role. Let me assure you that today's ICCRC is not the organization you reviewed in 2017. We have taken your concerns seriously and worked hard to make significant changes.

Over the last two years the council has evolved. We've increased education standards. Last week, for example, we announced the upgrading of prerequisite education to a post-graduate diploma level. We've streamlined and improved the complaint and discipline process. We've strengthened governance on the board of directors and revamped our public communications and outreach strategies. A key component of these new initiatives has been the hiring of new senior leadership, including me as CEO, and Michael as director of professional conduct. In addition, we have tripled staff resources for the professional conduct division and implemented new processes that have significantly improved our disciplinary process.

Despite these efforts, our main challenges remain our limited ability to properly investigate serious complaints and our lack of tools and authority to address ghost consultants. Ghost consultants, as you're aware, are unlicensed individuals who pose as immigration consultants to defraud potential immigrants to Canada. These unauthorized scammers pose the greatest threat to the immigration consulting profession because they operate completely in the black market, and often overseas.

The new college would have the tools and authority to take substantive action against ghost consultants. The act would also position the college to work closely with the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to really crack down on these illegal operators.

We are confident that should Bill C-97 pass, we will be able to transition smoothly to the new college, continuing to build on the changes we've already made to create the effective, reliable regulator this committee would like to see. We've made tremendous progress in the last two years, and we look forward to leveraging this knowledge and experience into a new, improved self-regulatory body.

Thank you for your time. Michael and I welcome any questions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Schaan, as you'll remember, I started talking about the concept of good faith at the end of the last meeting.

Bill C-97 introduces the concept of good faith. All parties to a proceeding are required to act in good faith. I'd like to know what more this amendment would provide than what judges already use. According to some experts, judges can already rely on the concept of good faith to ensure all parties cooperate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will call the meeting to order. We're dealing with Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures. We are still dealing with officials. I believe we're in part 4, division 5.

Mark, I believe you have already given your overview of the section which relates to clauses 133 to 152. I don't think there's anybody different here or I would ask you to repeat the overview again. I think we're okay.

Are there any questions on what Mark presented the other day on enforcing retirement security?

Mr. Dusseault.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think it's the principle of the legislation that we're debating at the moment. If we can get into the details the officials can answer, maybe that's where we ought to be. I think we are having a great exchange. This is a wonderful exchange, but we really need to get into Bill C-97—

[Sonia Simard]

With regard to your question, perhaps I could add one other angle very quickly.

Aside from competition, the discussion in 10 years might be on the labour model, and we wouldn't want to lose the occasion to address that issue right now in the current system in order to improve the competitiveness and the cost-efficiency of the service. So it's not only about the labour model; it's also about addressing the current efficiencies and working together with the pilots to do that. That's why, when we talk about the principles, the cost-efficiency and the responsiveness to users....

Take the example of double pilotage. We don't need to address labour models in order to address the issues and have a good look at double pilotage—for example, the need for double pilotage in winter. Bill C-97 will give us the tools, we hope, to look at efficiencies and address some of the competition issues.

[Capt Simon Pelletier]

That's a very valid point. The basis of having a certificated person, captain or officer, on board a ship is to make sure that this person has the proper local knowledge to safely navigate a ship within a compulsory pilotage zone. That's the basis. Essentially that's what has been going on in the regions. Every time there's a captain certificated, he's been through a thorough process, and the four pilotage authorities are assessing his competence and knowledge. That's fundamental for the system. As far as I know, Bill C-97 says the same thing.

[Capt Simon Pelletier]

After reading the proposed amendments, I don't see any concrete difference between the current act and the act that would be implemented following this process. As you said, regulations are in place in the four regions. I gather from the bill that Transport Canada would develop the regulations under the new act. The principles proposed in Bill C-97 suggest that things would be basically the same.

[Michael Broad, President, Shipping Federation of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We are a national trade association. Our members are the owners, operators and agents of ships trading between Canada and overseas ports. Their vessels operate in all four pilotage authority areas in Canada from coast to coast. These ships, operating internationally, shoulder most of the pilotage costs in Canada.

The existing Pilotage Act has remained largely frozen in time since 1972 despite changes in navigational technology, ship design and communications. We strongly believe that Bill C-97 will provide a solid basis from which to continue the much-needed task of modernizing pilotage service in this country. We therefore urge members of this committee to ensure that these amendments are passed into law as soon as possible.

In Canada, pilotage authorities are mandatory, and delivered under a legislated monopoly with a for-profit component. More specifically, under the existing Pilotage Act, pilotage authorities are solely responsible for the administration of pilotage services, while pilots are responsible for delivering these services either as employees of the authorities or as for-profit corporations on a contractual basis.

Before going any further, we wish to note that the existing act has served as an excellent tool for ensuring safe navigation in Canadian waters, and the amendments proposed under this bill in no way detract from this essential value of the pilotage system. Unfortunately, the present pilotage model lacks accountability and transparency, in some cases is insufficiently responsive to user needs, and does little to foster a culture of continuous improvement or cost competitiveness. As a result, the uptake of new technology has been less than optimal and the system has been unable to control costs.

We are therefore pleased to note that the amendments to the Pilotage Act proposed under Bill C-97 will provide a number of important tools for addressing these concerns and modernizing the delivery of pilotage services in Canada. One of the key tools provided under the bill is the addition of an explicit “purpose and principles” clause that will directly shape how pilotage service is delivered and how legislative, administrative and judicial powers are exercised. Given the important role this clause will play in the way service is delivered and enforced, we have proposed a handful of amendments in the form of additional wording to strengthen the framework that Bill C-97 provides. Those amendments can be found in our written submission.

In order to further strengthen the implementation of the act, we also respectfully request that this committee consider making comments in its report on the need to ensure that Transport Canada continues to work towards greater transparency and accountability from pilot corporations, given their status as legally imposed monopoly service providers. In addition, in a context where the regulatory framework will be consolidated under Transport Canada, we urge the committee to stress the importance of providing Transport with the necessary resources to deliver in terms of regulatory development while also ensuring that pilotage authorities are provided with the necessary management tools to remain effective.

Finally, there is one element of division 11 that we object to, the transfer of the full costs of administering the legislation from Transport Canada to the private sector. We are unaware of any other activity-specific legislation that would allow the minister to pass on these costs to industry. In addition, it would seem that any cost recovery initiative should be subject to the Service Fees Act, which comes with its own set of guidelines, rules and standards. This proposal also fails to acknowledge the public good component involved in legislating pilotage services in Canada.

To summarize our asks, first, we strongly support the amended pilotage framework proposed under division 11 of Bill C-97, and ask the committee to ensure that it is passed into law as soon as possible. We ask you to consider one set of very targeted amendments to the purpose and principles clause, which will further strengthen the framework from a user's perspective. Finally, we ask the committee to consider the removal of the extraneous clause with respect to the transfer of Transport Canada's administration costs, which goes beyond mandatory pilotage and, in our opinion, differs from government-wide policies.

[Bruce Burrows, President, Chamber of Marine Commerce]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.

My name is Bruce Burrows. I'm the President of the new Chamber of Marine Commerce.

I'm joined today by Robert Turner, our Vice-President of Operations.

I'll launch right into our remarks, as I know you're all aware of the CMC and what we do.

The CMC represents over 130 marine industry members in Canada and the United States.

I can't stress how fundamentally important these reforms are to Canada's pilotage system. The Pilotage Act hasn't seen a major overhaul since the early seventies, and it shows, quite frankly. After 45 years, we're finally seeing changes in Bill C-97 that will set out a framework that will encourage greater objectivity, transparency and consistency. All of these are essential elements to good governance, which has been lacking in today's monopolized pilotage system.

The Pilotage Act will now have clear purpose and principles to guide decision-making, and pilotage services are to be provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Use of evolving technology and sound risk management are also brought to the forefront.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject matter of clauses 225 to 279, part 4, divisions 11 and 12, of Bill C-97.

Welcome, committee members and all of our witnesses. My apologies for the forthcoming interruption of our meeting, but we'll try to get as much done as we possibly can in a shorter period of time.

By the way, we are not in camera. This meeting is public and will be recorded at the same time.

Before we go on to our witnesses, Mr. Badawey.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order. We're continuing our meeting with officials on the budget implementation act, Bill C-97.

I'm not sure whether you were done your presentation or not, Ms. Tepczynska. Do you have anything more to add? If not, we'll go to questions on part 4, division 1, which is subdivision A, the Bank Act. Was there anything more you wanted to add?

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

Fine. I understood that it was for 2025.

The other unkept promise, which was a very clear one, was the one about stock options. You at least mentioned that in the budget, and I have to recognize that.

In your budget statement, you mentioned that this was a highly regressive measure. You admit that the measure is regressive, and even include very clear figures in your budget. I will mention them so that people who are listening to us understand well.

In 2017, 2,330 individuals who earned more than $1 million a year shared $1.3 billion in tax advantages related to stock options. And then there were 20,140 individuals who earned less than $200,000 a year, who shared $120 million thanks to that measure. In your own words, this is a highly regressive measure.

The only thing you did in the budget, even though this relates to a 2015 promise, is say that you would examine the issue and make an announcement next summer. Bill C-97, which we are now studying, was your opportunity to change the Income Tax Act to finally correct it and provide that fairness.

Why did you again postpone a promise you made to Canadians, and which you have still not kept four years later, and are postponing again?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Thank you. I have an hour and a half opening statement that I thought I'd start with. Seriously, though, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the members of the committee for having me here today. It's good to be back before this committee to discuss the budget implementation act.

Before I speak about the measures in this bill, I'd like to thank all the members on this committee for their due diligence on the pre-budget consultations. That obviously was critically important to us as we moved forward in the preparation of our budget. Of course, I'd also like to thank you now for your work on the budget implementation act.

This bill is the next step in our plan to invest in the middle class and ensure economic growth. Clearly, investments are essential if we are to do that.

When I talk to Canadians, they say they remember the situation in 2015. The Canadian economy had slowed down. People felt abandoned. During the years that followed, we worked extremely hard to reverse the situation through investments in people and communities, investments that bore fruit.

Canadians, supported by the government's economic plan, have created more than 900,000 new jobs since 2015, pushing the unemployment rate to near 40-year lows. Middle-class families are better off across the country, and fewer people are living in poverty in Canada today. That's a lot of progress over three and a half years, but we know there's still much more work to do. People are still feeling anxious about their futures and their ability to make big, long-term investments in their families.

That's why our government, through this budget implementation act, is taking more steps to invest in the middle class and the things that Canadians need to succeed. I'd like to take the opportunity this afternoon to highlight some of those important measures.

For many Canadians, one of their top concerns is their job. That makes sense. Canadians want to take pride in their work and be able to support themselves and their families, but as the global economy continues to evolve and as things like automation transform the job market, the skills people have today will need to change. This is a challenge that all industrialized countries are facing. What sets Canada apart and what will help us to remain competitive in the global economy is our people and the investments we make in them.

This year's budget proposes to introduce the Canada training benefit, a new benefit that will help Canadians to prepare for, to plan and to get the training they need. An important part of the benefit included in the budget implementation act is a training credit that will give working Canadians $250 every year to put toward the cost of future training, a credit that can add up to as much as $5,000 over the course of a career. That's the kind of long-term planning that you, as members, will be able to see in the course of reviewing all of our budget.

Housing is another good example. Our government believes that every Canadian should have a safe and affordable place to call home. The budget implementation act would enact Canada's first national housing strategy act, requiring the federal government to prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. It would require the government to report on progress toward achieving the strategy's goals, like building 100,000 new housing units, repairing 300,000 other units and cutting homelessness in half.

The BIA also proposes measures to help Canadians take their first steps toward home ownership. It would amend the National Housing Act and allow the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to offer shared equity mortgages to eligible homebuyers. The first-time buyer incentive would reduce the monthly payments required for people in the purchase of their first home. For a new condo or house worth $400,000, the savings could be more than $225 per month. This measure is expected to help approximately 100,000 Canadians to buy their first homes.

The act would also increase the homebuyers' plan withdrawal limit, giving first-time homebuyers greater access to the savings in their registered retirement savings plan to buy a home. These measures would be especially beneficial to young Canadians for whom home ownership seems increasingly out of reach.

Housing isn't the only place where barriers exist for young people and that's why we're also working to make education more affordable. With the measures in the budget implementation act, students wouldn't have to start repaying their Canada student loans for six months after they graduate and interest wouldn't accumulate on those loans during that time period. That gives people time to start a career and to begin saving up. It's a change that sets young Canadians up for success, allowing them to focus on what they want to do, not on what they have to pay.

We're taking a similar approach with seniors. Through budget 2019 and through the budget implementation act, we're taking steps to make retirement more financially secure.

In order to help low-income seniors, we intend to raise the Guaranteed Income Supplement earnings exemption. This means that seniors will keep a larger part of their pay and benefits.

So that all workers may derive full advantage of their contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, we propose to register them proactively. The objective is to guarantee that those who contribute to the CPP and are 70 or more and have not yet registered to receive their pension benefits, will receive them. They deserve them. However, these are not the only measures that will allow us to protect Canadians and their families in the context of this bill based on communities and clean growth.

One of the other measures is to build a cleaner and more sustainable Canada. As you know, we already work with the provinces and territories to put a price on carbon pollution and fight climate change. We are going even further with Budget 2019 by making zero-emission vehicles more affordable, including for the businesses that want to renew their vehicle fleets.

The Act to implement certain provisions of the budget would allow those businesses to recover that investment faster.

Another way we're helping to protect Canadians is by combatting financial crime. I know this committee has done a lot of work in this regard and I know that you've looked at how we can best do that, and I'd like to thank the committee for that work. With this legislation, we know we can help improve Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework, strengthening the resources, intelligence and information sharing needed to identify and meet evolving threats, while also continuing to protect the privacy rights of Canadians and manage the regulatory burden on the private sector.

I could provide more examples. After all, as you know, this is an ambitious agenda, but what I'd like to do instead as I conclude my remarks is to thank the members of this committee for their careful attention to the bill. It's a bill that will help prepare Canadians for good jobs, make it easier to buy a home, and help young people starting out and seniors as they retire.

I'm happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We shall call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 30, 2019, the committee is studying Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019, and other measures.

We have the honour of the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Bill Morneau, appearing before us, as well as Rob Stewart, associate deputy minister, and Andrew Marsland, assistant DM. I believe there's a number of other finance officials in the room.

Mr. Minister, the floor is yours. I understand you have an opening statement and then we'll go to questions. Welcome.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to the perspectives and concerns of my constituents, as well as in my role as the shadow minister for transportation, regarding Bill C-97, which is another omnibus bill proposed by the current Liberal government.

I want to begin by commending my hon. colleague, the member for Carleton, for his thoughtful and comprehensive response to the budget. As he so aptly noted, this budget is a string of broken promises and perhaps the most expensive cover-up in history. The Prime Minister and his government are attempting to change the channel on the SNC-Lavalin affair and are using billions of taxpayer dollars to make this happen.

As we all know, the Liberal Party ran on the promise of balancing the budget in 2019. It is a promise made, and it is a promise broken to the tune of $19.8 billion.

For years now, the member for Carleton has repeatedly asked a simple question of the finance minister: When will the budget be balanced? Every time, the finance minister has refused to answer. Despite the minister's refusal, we do know that there is no plan to balance the budget before 2040, if even then. By 2040, the Liberals' current plan would see $271 billion added to our debt. The government has left us with nothing in our back pocket. The Liberals have spent their paycheque, our paycheque and our children's paycheque. If we face another economic downturn, they will spend our great-grandchildren's money as well, long before they have even been born.

In just three years, this Prime Minister has added $60 billion to our national debt, and any comparison to the previous Conservative government's spending is made in bad faith. While the Conservative government faced down the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, this Prime Minister has had nothing but clear sailing. Under the Conservatives, Canada weathered the economic storm better and returned to balanced budgets faster than any other country in the G7. That is because we spent when we needed to and saved when we could.

This Prime Minister has managed to turn a balanced budget and booming world economy into giant deficits and a slowing Canadian economy. While our neighbours to the south enjoyed a 3% growth in 2018, Canada eked out a mere 1.8%. Only a few days ago, the Bank of Canada suggested that we will slow even further this year, to 1.2%.

I know it can be hard to track the numbers. In fact, that is what the Liberals count on. Therefore, let us simplify it: The tens of billions of dollars of wasted, inefficient spending from the current government have done nothing for our economy but bleed it dry. What is the government's response? It is to spend more. The Liberals spend in the good times and the bad. They always spend.

There are only two reasons for a country to have a deficit problem: Either there is a revenue problem or there is a spending problem. With tax revenues actually higher than expected, the answer is clear. The government has a spending problem. In fact, with this budget containing over $41 billion in new spending over the next five years, a seemingly ridiculous question has to be asked: Are the Liberals intentionally spending so recklessly just to stay in deficit? How else can we explain a 20% increase in spending in the first three years of the government's mandate? All of this increased spending is taking place against the backdrop of higher taxes and an increased cost of living brought on by the government.

Over 80% of middle-income Canadians are paying more in taxes now than they were three years ago. This has resulted in many Canadians finding it hard to make ends meet. Almost half of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to pay their bills at the end of the month. Any unforeseen expense would result in these families facing serious financial hardship.

If the government had handled finances better, paid down debt and built a rainy-day fund, we could be cutting taxes for these families and helping them make their payments. Instead, the Liberal government has spent beyond its means and brought in a carbon tax, forcing families to pay more to heat their homes and drive to work. What is even worse is that the Prime Minister is forcing those families to pay the GST on his carbon tax. Imagine that, Madam Speaker, a tax on a tax.

There are two very specific sections on which I would like to comment briefly in my role as the shadow minister for transport in the Conservative caucus. First, I would like to discuss division 12, the government's proposed changes to airport security screening. The Minister of Transport has once again been strong-armed by his colleagues to include drastic changes to the system in a budget implementation act. It appears the minister and the government do not care about the economic well-being of our transportation system, or in this case the air passenger system.

At committee today, we heard that over the past two years, the Liberal government has time and again assaulted the Canadian airline industry with new taxes and costs without thought to how these changes will impact air passengers. Not only that, the government is rushing legislative and regulatory changes through to meet an artificial deadline.

The proposed changes in division 12 contain another example of this. Rather than consult and facilitate negotiations between the parties on a new security screening entity and its assets, the Liberals are ramming drastic changes through Parliament and down the throats of the industry. This will hurt not only airlines but also passengers. For years, governments have paid out less than they collected in the airport security fee that air passengers were charged. This means that passengers have already paid for CATSA assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

In a ridiculous move, the government's changes will force Canadian travellers to pay for these assets all over again, without due consideration for their depreciation or their actual value. This will doubtless result in higher ticket prices before even accounting for the carbon tax. The out-of-touch Prime Minister does not get that most Canadians do not have a taxpayer-funded private jet at their disposal for weekend cross-country surfing trips. Most Canadians have to save in order to afford a vacation. Those average Canadians are the ones who will pay for the reckless, heavy-handed changes in this bill. From making Canadians pay a tax on a tax to forcing Canadian travellers to pay for screening equipment twice, the government is better than the sheriff of Nottingham at squeezing taxes out of Canadians.

Finally, I would like to briefly discuss division 11, which contains changes to the Pilotage Act. Based on conversations I have had with stakeholders, I do not have deep concerns with the proposed changes, but it is very disappointing that these proposed changes were once again buried in a budget implementation act. Improvements to the Pilotage Act will reinforce Canada's commitment to a safe and efficient marine transportation system supported by a legal and legislative framework.

Given that, an oil tanker moratorium in any region of the country is an insult to both marine pilots and shippers alike. An arbitrary shipping ban based on an ideological election promise is basically an admission that the government believes there is no way marine pilots or shippers can do the job they have been trained to do. This is an insult to the entire industry.

As I said earlier, this entire budget is a litany of broken promises: a broken promise to balance the budget, a broken promise to help the middle class and a broken promise by introducing an omnibus bill. Come October, Canadians will remind the government of the cost of broken promises.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nearly four years ago, our government was elected with a commitment to invest in the things that matter most to Canadians, including housing affordability for young people; creating good, well-paying jobs; support for seniors and families; and protecting the environment. In March, our government tabled budget 2019, which would make important investments to deliver on this commitment to improve the quality of life for all Canadians and to continue to build on the work we have done over the last four years.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.

I have heard concerns from many of my constituents in Oakville North—Burlington, one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, about affordability and the accessibility of the housing market to first-time homebuyers. To help make home ownership more affordable for first-time buyers, budget 2019 proposes to introduce a first-time homebuyer incentive, which would create a fund of $1.25 billion that would be available to eligible first-time homebuyers with household incomes of under $120,000 per year. Budget 2019 would also provide first-time homebuyers with greater access to their RRSP savings to buy a home by increasing the withdrawal limit to $35,000.

Our government understands that the job market is changing rapidly. Many Canadians now need to develop new skills mid-career in order to pivot to a new career path. That is why budget 2019 proposes to invest more than $1.7 billion over five years in Canada's first-ever Canada training benefit. The new benefit would include two key components: introducing a credit to help Canadians with the cost of training fees, and creating an EI training support benefit that would provide workers with the flexibility to train when it worked best for them.

We would also lower the interest rate on all Canada student loans, changing the current federal student financial assistance regime so that student loans would not accumulate any interest during the six-month grace period after a student left school.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit Niagara College, in Welland, to talk to faculty and staff about these measures, and they thanked me for our government's work to support students, including our initiatives in budget 2018 to support young people who choose skilled trades.

In early March, the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare released its interim report. Budget 2019 affirms the government's commitment to work towards the three recommendations made by the council: the creation of a Canada drug agency, which would make prescription drugs more affordable for more Canadians; the development of a comprehensive, evidence-based list of prescribed drugs to harmonize coverage across Canada; and an investment in data on prescription drugs. Budget 2019 would provide Health Canada with $35 million over four years to support the development of this vision. In a measure being applauded by health care advocates, the budget would also invest up to $1 billion over two years to help Canadians with rare diseases access the drugs they need.

In 1980, Terry Fox united this country with a vision to one day find a cure for cancer. When Terry had to stop his Marathon of Hope, he said, “I’m not going to give up. But I might not make it...if I don’t, the Marathon of Hope better continue”.

Budget 2019 would help to realize Terry's dream by allocating $150 million towards the Marathon of Hope Cancer Centres Network. The federal government would collaborate with the Terry Fox Research Institute and its partners, which are providing matching funding, to link universities and hospitals across Canada to advance the principles of precision medicine and to transform how cancer research is done not only in Canada but around the world.

This particular investment is one that is close to my heart, and I want to thank Dr. Victor Ling, from the Terry Fox Research Institute; the Terry Fox Foundation chair, Bill Pristanski; and Terry Foxers across Canada for their advocacy and efforts to educate members of Parliament on this important investment.

Our seniors have shaped our country in countless ways, and after a lifetime of hard work, they deserve to have confidence in their retirement. Budget 2019 proposes new measures to better protect workplace pensions in the event that an employer goes bankrupt.

We are also allocating an additional $100 million over five years for the new horizons for seniors program. I know what an impact this program has for seniors in my riding at places like Tansley United Church and Oak Park Neighbourhood Centre, as it helps fund programming that promotes seniors' participation and inclusion in their communities.

I am proud to represent a community where so many of my constituents, in addition to their advocacy on environmental issues, make environmentally conscious choices in their day-to-day lives, such as reducing their use of plastics or driving zero-emission vehicles.

We know that more Canadians are choosing to drive zero-emission vehicles as an increasing number of models become available and prices decline. Regrettably, last year the Government of Ontario cancelled the electric and hydrogen vehicle incentive program, and a number of my constituents reached out to me to share their disappointment and frustration.

Fortunately, our government is taking action and has proposed strategic investments to help more Canadians choose zero-emission vehicles, including $300 million over three years to introduce a new federal purchase incentive of up to $5,000 for electric battery or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles with a retail price of less than $45,000.

As of April l, it is no longer free to pollute anywhere in Canada. Our government recognizes that we need to act now to ensure that our children and grandchildren have clean air to breathe, that Canada has a strong and healthy economy, that we make Canadians' health and safety our number one priority.

Pricing pollution is the least costly way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster clean innovation. We will return all the revenue from a price on pollution to the provinces those revenues come from, with 90% going directly to families through a climate action incentive. In 2019, the average family of four in Ontario will receive $307 through the climate action incentive, while a single individual will receive $154.

The other 10% of revenues from the price on pollution will go towards helping small and medium-sized businesses, schools, hospitals, indigenous peoples, and communities improve their energy efficiency.

We are also making a one-time payment to municipalities through a municipal infrastructure top-up that will see Halton Region receive $16 million; Oakville, $5.9 million; and Burlington, $5.3 million. This money will go directly to support local infrastructure projects, such as public transit, disaster mitigation and adaptation projects, community centres and active transportation infrastructure.

As a former municipal councillor, I know that these funds will be a game-changer for our communities.

We are creating Canada's first national dementia strategy, with an investment of $50 million over five years. We are creating a pan-Canadian database for organ donation and transportation. We are investing in a pan-Canadian suicide prevention service, working with experienced and dedicated partners.

Diversity and inclusion are cornerstones of Canadian identity and something that all Canadians can be proud of. At the same time, recent tragic events in Canada and abroad have shown that no community is immune to the effects of hateful rhetoric. Around the world, ultra-nationalist movements have emerged, and in Canada those groups are unfairly targeting new Canadians, racialized individuals and religious minorities, threatening the peace, security and civility of the communities we call home. That is why this year's federal budget proposes to provide $45 million over three years to support the creation of a new anti-racism strategy. Its key purpose will be to find ways to counter racism in its various forms, with a strong focus on community-based projects.

The threat of climate change has become more tangible for Canadians as we see more severe, more frequent and more costly natural disasters, such as wildfires and flooding. One need look no further than the flooding in my community of Burlington a few years ago and the current flooding taking place here in Ottawa and Quebec and New Brunswick to know the devastation these natural disasters bring.

While Conservatives are making short-sighted decisions like the one in Ontario to cut funding by 50% to conservation authorities for flood forecasting and natural hazards management, we are investing $151 million over five years and $9 million per year ongoing to improve emergency management in Canada. These investments will enhance our understanding of the nature of risks posed by floods, wildfires and earthquakes. They will also help in assessing the condition and resilience of Canada's critical infrastructure.

There are many more investments in budget 2019, but I do not have time to outline them all. I am proud of the investments we are making to improve the lives of Canadians, and I know that all Canadians can be proud of them as well.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-97, the first budget implementation act for 2019.

First, this was a phenomenal budget for my constituents in Brampton North and for all Canadians. It would take far more than 10 minutes to talk about all of its strengths, but I will highlight some of its biggest wins for Brampton in the time I have been given.

In a city as fast growing as Brampton, infrastructure spending is especially critical. More Bramptonians make use of our roads and public transit system every day. Brampton Transit saw its ridership grow by 14% last year, with over 30 million total rides, making it the fastest-growing transit system in Canada. Budget 2019 embraces and invests in that growth.

A one-time transfer directly to municipalities will see the City of Brampton receive over $16.6 million in additional infrastructure spending. The region of Peel, which Brampton is in, is receiving a further $41 million through this transfer. This is money that can go toward improvements to our roads and highways. It can buy new buses, in addition to the 22 buses our government has already funded, or renovate transit hubs. It can make critical repairs to our water and waste water system. It can go toward new sports or cultural centres as well.

This funding is a big deal for Brampton, and I am thrilled it was in our budget.

However, let us not forget why this money is so important. Our government has billions of dollars on the table for the Province of Ontario through our investing in Canada infrastructure program, and $8.3 billion are available for public transit alone. Can my city apply directly to the federal government for funding? No, it cannot. For that funding to be available, the provincial government needs to come to the table. It is Premier Ford's responsibility to open up funding streams to be a full partner and get these projects going.

I have had many meetings with my city councillors, regional councillors and the mayor of Brampton. We all seem to agree that these projects cannot open up soon enough. However, it seems that Doug Ford does not want to invest, does not want to create jobs. Time is running out. The summer construction season is practically under way. Unions, trade associations and contractors are speaking up. They are concerned they will not have any work this summer.

While the province refuses to let cities apply for public transit funding, refuses to let them apply for any infrastructure funding, billions of dollars are being left on the table, as are the jobs and projects that come with it.

However, perhaps I am focusing too much on public transit funding. After all, looking at the Ontario transit plan, it does not look like Premier Ford intends for Brampton to receive any of it. A $28.5 billion transit line for downtown Toronto will take up every drop of infrastructure funding from multiple levels of government and then some, while leaving my city and my constituents out in the cold.

However, the municipal infrastructure funding is far from the only important part of budget 2019 for Brampton North.

If there is one thing my constituents have wanted in Brampton for a very long time, it is a university. Much like our government, we are a city that strongly believes in the value of learning and access to a good education. Our government's changes to make post-secondary education more affordable have been well received.

Within our first year of government, we increased Canada student grants by 50%. We ensured that graduates were not required to start making payments on their loan until they were earning $25,000 a year. We have more than doubled the number of Canada summer jobs so more students can get valuable work experience and save money for tuition or living costs.

Changes proposed in budget 2019, which are included in Bill C-97, will extend the interest-free period on student loans by six months, giving students room to breathe following graduation.

Investing in all levels of education, including post-secondary education, is essential to ensuring young people get the skills, training and opportunities they need to succeed in the workforce, now and well into the future. Our government understands that. My constituents understand that. I am proud that many of them joined in the province-wide walkout on April 4 to protest Premier Ford's education system changes. While we are making the six-month period interest-free, Premier Ford has taken away that period completely.

This is why so many of my constituents were devastated when one of the first things the newly elected Conservative provincial government did was cut the funding for the downtown Ryerson University campus. The cuts were unexpected and they blew a hole in Brampton's vision for an economic revitalization of our downtown core. They were universally condemned by my community.

I recall the president of Brampton's board of trade commenting that the move to cut funding did not inspire confidence in the government's decision-making—

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. I had hoped to have an opportunity to speak to the budget itself, but that of course was denied as a result of the filibuster by the member for Carleton.

It is a very good budget for Prince Edward Island, and it is a long time coming.

During the Harper years, we were particularly hard done by in our province and in our region. Throughout the Harper years, we saw disproportionate cuts to the civil service. We saw cuts to the employment insurance program, which is so very important in seasonal economies such as the one in Prince Edward Island.

We saw the closure of Veterans Affairs district offices, and this is something near and dear to my heart as the member of Parliament for Charlottetown. Charlottetown is the only place outside the national capital region that has a national headquarters of a federal government department. We are immensely proud that the national headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs is in Charlottetown, so it was particularly troubling to see that district office close. However, we fixed that.

Also during the Harper years, we saw the closure of the citizenship office. Prince Edward Island was left as the only province in Canada without a citizenship and immigration office at a very time when immigration levels in our province were increasing to the point where we now have the highest per capita immigration in the country. However, we fixed that closure of the immigration office.

We went through a period in the Harper years of the slowest economic growth since R. B. Bennett. We fixed that. We saw an accumulation of $160 billion in new debt during the Harper years, and high unemployment.

In Prince Edward Island, there is an old adage that our economy is somewhat different. We are not subject to the swings we see in the rest of Canada. Therefore, when the economy goes in the tank, it does not dip as far in Prince Edward Island, and when the economy is on fire, it does not excel as much as it does in the rest of the country. Part of that could be because of the seasonal economy. Part of that could be because, until recently, there has not been a lot of industry outside of the seasonal economy. The government sector is quite important. The university sector has been quite important. We have seen that change.

This economic boom, this period of unprecedented growth that we have not seen since the pre-Harper years and that we are experiencing right now, is different. Prince Edward Island is not only sharing in that growth; in many categories we are leading the country. We are leading the country with respect to increases in retail sales. We are leading the country with respect to economic growth. We are leading the country with respect to immigration growth. It has been said that the Prince Edward Island economy is on a tear. That is due in no small part to the economic policies of this government.

Immediately upon being elected, this government brought in the Canada child benefit. I mentioned earlier the pride we have over the fact that there is a national headquarters for a federal government department in Prince Edward Island. The payroll at the national headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs is $100 million a year, and $100 million a year is very important to the economy of Prince Edward Island.

Just to get a sense of the importance of the Canada child benefit, which was introduced immediately after our election, the amount of money that is brought into Prince Edward Island through the Canada child benefit is $100 million a year, the same as the payroll at the national headquarters. The difference between the Canada child benefit and the payroll at Veterans Affairs is that the Canada child benefit is tax free. That is one factor. There are multiple factors in the success of the P.E.I. economy in recent years, but one of them is the economic policies of this government.

In a certain sense, we have also become victims of our own success. We share in the national housing crunch. The vacancy rate in the riding I am proud to represent is 0.3%. That is in part because of our growing population and the proliferation of Airbnbs. It is in part because there is so much construction happening around Prince Edward Island that it is very difficult to get tradespeople, in part because of our sky-high tourism numbers and in part because of the seasonal economy, which makes Airbnb particularly attractive.

I indicated that we have in a sense become a victim of our own success. That is also the case with respect to labour shortages, which is why programs like the Atlantic growth strategy and the Atlantic immigration pilot have been so very important. It is also why programs like the Canada training benefit, included in this budget, will be very important to us.

That success has also exerted a strain on our health care system, where it has become harder to get a family doctor. Fortunately, this budget also includes increases to the Canada health and social transfer, which will go some way to alleviating that pressure.

This budget will allow Prince Edward Island to continue its impressive record. As I indicated, with respect to housing there is a 0.3% vacancy rate. There are substantial initiatives in the budget to address the housing crunch in this country, including measures to make housing more affordable for first-time homebuyers, including the retail finance initiative. These are all measures that are welcome and necessary, and for once they are measures that are important for a province that is sharing in the economic success we have seen.

Under the reaching home strategy, a $3-million award, administered through the John Howard Society, was recently announced to tackle homelessness in Prince Edward Island. As I indicated with the rock-bottom vacancy rate in our fair province, this is desperately needed. The good people at the John Howard Society and the board that examines the proposals to attack homelessness are to be commended and supported. This investment will no doubt lift them up.

The other thing I want to mention with respect to housing is something that was specifically mentioned in the budget. It is not very often that Prince Edward Island gets a specific mention in the budget, but there were at least a couple. One was with respect to new ferries for the passage from P.E.I. to Îles de la Madeleine and for the passage from Caribou Island in Nova Scotia to Wood Islands in Prince Edward Island. This is something that really has been the life's work of the hon. member for Cardigan.

On the housing front, there was specific mention of a $50.8-million public housing project in Prince Edward Island. This public housing project is designed for people with complex multiple needs: social, medical and psychological needs. In part, this investment will replace the aging Hillsborough Hospital, but it will be much broader than that. It is an indication of where the government's heart and head are in supporting those who are most vulnerable and providing for those battling mental health, addictions and complicated problems.

I want to close by mentioning two other specific things in the budget. There was specific mention of the Confederation Centre of the Arts. The Confederation Centre of the Arts was built as a monument to the Fathers of Confederation back in 1967. This budget included a $500-million annual increase to the operating budget of the Confederation Centre of the Arts.

The cultural industries are so important to my province, so important to my riding and so important to this country. I am proud, as a Prince Edward Islander, to be able to support this budget.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act.

With budget 2019, our government would continue to invest in the middle class and in communities across Canada, such as Langley City, the Township of Langley and the city of Surrey, all located within the riding I represent, Cloverdale—Langley City.

Whether it is helping Canadians buy their first home or investing in clean energy and public transit, budget 2019 focuses on the current challenges faced by everyday Canadians and would address them in meaningful ways that would give help where people needed it the most. I will be speaking on measures that would address those issues today.

Budget 2019 is our government's fourth budget and would build on the work and progress our government has in made these past four years.

Today Canada's economy is one of the fastest growing in the G7. Since 2015, Canadians have created more than 900,000 new jobs. Thanks to the middle-class tax cut and the tax-free Canada child benefit, families in the riding of Cloverdale—Langley City have more money in their pockets to help make ends meet. However, it is important to recognize that there is still more work to do, and we need to get on it now. Budget 2019 is a good next step that would help ensure that all Canadians share in this growing prosperity.

The biggest issue I hear about at doors in Cloverdale—Langley City is housing. Everyone needs a safe and affordable place to call home, but today too many Canadians are being priced out of the housing market. This budget would help address this issue in several ways.

To start, budget 2019 proposes to invest $300 million to launch a new housing supply challenge. The housing supply challenge would invite municipalities and Canadians across the country to propose new ways to break down barriers that limit the creation of new housing.

We would also expand the rental construction financing initiative, helping to build more affordable rental options for Canadians so they can live near where they work or study, and we are tackling homelessness across the country through the reaching home strategy.

A new rental building project in my riding, with 100 units, had more than 2,000 people apply for those units, demonstrating the need for significantly more rental options in Cloverdale—Langley City.

Budget 2019 proposes an additional $10 billion over nine years, extending this program until 2027-28. This would help create 42,500 new rental units across Canada, with a particular focus in areas of low rental supply.

To address the difficulty young families may have buying their first home, through Bill C-97, budget 2019 proposes a new first-time homebuyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadians could lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership more affordable. The incentive would provide funding of 5% or 10% of the home purchase price for existing or new homes respectively, with no ongoing monthly payments required. The program is expected to help approximately 100,000 Canadians buy homes they can afford.

Additionally, budget 2019 proposes to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit to $35,000 from $25,000. The home buyers' plan allows first-time home buyers to withdraw from their registered retirement savings plans to purchase or build a home without having to pay tax on the withdrawal.

I am excited about what our investments in infrastructure through budget 2019 would mean for communities across the country that need funding to get local projects done. Through budget 2019, we would ensure that infrastructure funding would get to those who have shown that they are willing and able to get projects done: our local and municipal governments.

We would invest a one-time top-up of $2.2 billion, through the federal gas tax fund, to get infrastructure funding in the hands of those who would ensure that it was invested in jobs to build our communities. This funding would address short-term priorities in municipalities and first nation communities. Cloverdale—Langley City would receive an additional top-up of approximately $2,041,652.03. With 95% of this money going toward TransLink, our regional transit infrastructure, it would help deal with a much-needed expansion in support of a growing network for our growing population.

Working with provinces and territories, the government has approved more than 33,000 infrastructure projects for communities across Canada, supported by federal investments of approximately $19.9 billion. In my riding, these investments will mean better highways, cleaner parks and new community centres. In fact, just last week I welcomed the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to my region for a joint funding announcement with the provincial and municipal governments for major improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway.

The $235.5-million investment will upgrade the stretch of highway between 216th Street and 264th Street and will include new high occupancy vehicle lanes, a new underpass and a new truck parking lot. This is an important step in addressing a significant pinch point in the regional transportation network in the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley.

Through Bill C-97, budget 2019 proposes measures that would make life more affordable for Canadian seniors and that would empower those who want to stay active and involved in their communities. Our government would increase the GIS exemption from $3,500 to $5,000 per year to give more of our fixed-income seniors the choice to continue to work without being penalized. We would begin proactive CPP enrolment at age 70 to ensure that no seniors missed out on benefits they were entitled to.

We would increase transparency and launch an initiative to change corporate laws to increase oversight and grant the courts a greater ability to review payments made to executives in the lead-up to insolvency, protecting workplace pensions from predatory practices.

Budget 2019 proposes significant additional funding of $100 million over five years, with $20 million per year ongoing, for the new horizons for seniors program so that it can continue to improve seniors' quality of life and better promote their active participation in the community. Many organizations and seniors have benefited from the new horizons for seniors program in Cloverdale—Langley City. With these enhancements, even more seniors would benefit from additional programs.

I would also like to highlight the work we are doing to address the opioid crisis. Through budget 2018, we provided $231.4 million over five years for measures to help address the growing problem, such as one-time emergency funding of $150 million for provinces and territories for multi-year projects to improve access to evidence-based treatment services.

Budget 2019 would build on this work and proposes to provide additional funding of $30.5 million over five years, starting in 2019-20, with $1 million in ongoing funding, for targeted measures to address persistent gaps in harm reduction and treatment. This funding would support efforts to expand access to a safe supply of prescription opioids, protecting people with problematic opioid use from the risk of overdose and death. It would also support better access to opioid overdose response training and to naloxone, a life-saving medication that can stop or reverse an opioid overdose, in underserved communities.

I recently spoke with the hard-working members of the Langley City Fire Rescue Service, who battle this opioid crisis on a daily basis. They agree that continued investments in the fight to end opioid overdoses and deaths is needed.

Budget 2019 is a budget that would work for everyone. Through this budget, we would implement new programs that would help Canadians progress in their careers, address the growing price of medication and advance our plan to grow a clean economy. I would like to go over these briefly.

First, budget 2019 would introduce a new Canada training benefit, a personalized, portable training benefit to help people plan for and get the training they need. Through this measure, Canadians would get four weeks of training every four years, up to $1,000 to help pay for training, income support to help with everyday expenses and the security of knowing that they would have a job to come back to when their training was done. At a recent meeting with the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce the need for a well-trained workforce with relevant skills was discussed. The Canada training benefit would help address this need of business.

Through budget 2019, we would lay the foundation for the implementation of a national pharmacare program while we await the final report of our advisory council on its full implementation. We would do so by creating the Canadian drug agency, a national formulary, and a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases.

Finally, budget 2019 would take the next steps in our plan to grow a clean economy and make life more affordable for Canadians. These steps would include deploying new recharging and refuelling stations and working with manufacturers to secure voluntary zero-emission vehicle sales targets to ensure that vehicle supply meets increased demand.

We would also introduce a new federal purchase incentive of up to $5,000 for electric battery or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This would help make zero-emission vehicles a realistic option for more Canadians by making them up to $5,000 cheaper, by building the infrastructure to support them and by encouraging new investments in zero-emission vehicle manufacturing here in Canada. To support businesses' adoption of zero-emission vehicles, budget 2019 proposes that these vehicles be eligible for a full tax write-off in the year they are put to use.

Our government has a plan, and that plan is working. Through budget 2019, we would invest in our communities and support those who need it the most. While there is still more work that needs to be done, budget 2019 would be another step in the right direction. This is a budget that I am proud to stand behind, and I urge every member of this chamber to do exactly the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think that's it for Bill S-6.

Mr. McGowan, today was a much easier run than yesterday.

We do have another matter that's just come up that we don't necessarily have to deal with, but to save time later.... This note has been sent to you electronically, so I'll read it. It deals with Bill C-97.

Dear Mr. Easter,

In response to your letter dated Tuesday, April 9, 2019, I would like to inform you that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has accepted to study the subject-matter of Part 4, division 15 of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019, and other measures.

The Committee has also adopted a motion to study the subject-matter of Part 4, division 16 of the Bill and would invite the Standing Committee on Finance to consider any proposed amendments from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, pertaining to this division, deemed to be proposed during your Committee's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-97.

Please find attached motions adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration regarding the consideration of subject matter, Part 4, division 15 and Part 4, division 16 of the Bill.

As requested, the Committee will send the Committee's recommendation, including any suggested amendments, in both official languages no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 17, 2019.

Sincerely,

Rob Oliphant

Chair

What they're basically saying in the letter is that, beyond what we agreed in our motion to send them, they would also like to deal with the additional subject matter of part 4, division 16, of the bill, which relates, I believe, to asylum.

Are we in agreement? Do we want to say we accept their motion and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration can deal with that matter and report back to us? Are we agreed on that?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for being so gracious in allowing me to participate in this debate today.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-97, the government's budget implementation act. It allows me the opportunity to examine in some detail why the Liberal government should not be re-elected this October. I say that because the government, if nothing else, has exhibited a litany of broken promises since 2015. Allow me to explain and highlight just a few of them.

As many Canadians may remember, during the election campaign in 2015, one of the many promises the Liberals made was to end what they called the undemocratic practice of introducing omnibus budget bills. What did we see this year? We saw another in a series of omnibus budget bills. In fact, the budget bill tabled this year is over 700 pages in length, making it the most lengthy budget bill ever introduced in parliamentary history. So much for stopping the practice of introducing omnibus budget bills.

I only note this as an example of one of the Liberals' broken promises. There are many more.

I will spend a little time on the second example, which is the most alarming of all the broken promises from the Liberals. This is the promise they made in 2015 to run, only for a three-year period, modest deficits of no more than $10 billion. They also promised that by the year 2019, the fourth year in their four-year mandate, they would return to balanced budgets. It is now 2019 and where are we? Do we have a balanced budget? We certainly do not. In fact, we have the furthest thing from it.

What is truly alarming is that on multiple occasions in committee, the finance minister of our country admitted that not only would we not return to balanced budgets in the foreseeable future, but he did not know when we might.

Let us think about that for just a second. I want all Canadians to think about that as well. The finance minister, who is arguably the second most influential person in Canada with respect to setting economic and fiscal policy, will not say when the budget will be balanced. More troubling is that he cannot because he does not know. The finance minister of Canada does not know when this country might return to balanced budgets. That is far more alarming to me than any pronouncement that any finance minister has made in recent history.

I could have understood if the finance minister would have said that he did not see the country returning to a balanced budget in the next five to 10 years or perhaps even in the next 15 years because of the economic and fiscal direction the government wished to pursue. However, it is more than just troubling for the finance minister to admit that he does not know when the country will return to a balanced budget because he cannot project that far into the future.

All Canadian taxpayers should think about that long and hard, and I hope they do. I hope that come October, they will remember this broken promise. Our country deserves better than a finance minister who does not know when his own budget might be balanced. It is almost unconscionable for a man in his position to admit that, yet that is the case before us.

It is not just the fact that the Liberals broke a promise on omnibus bills and their introduction in Parliament. It is not just the fact that they promised only modest deficits, and they have broken that promise. The Liberals have broken promises on things like electoral reform. They have broken promises on elements such as supporting the oil and gas sector in Canada, something on which the Liberals have deliberately, in my view, misled Canadians.

Let me give a couple of examples of what I say and what I mean by not supporting the oil and gas sector. Almost immediately upon forming government in 2015, the Liberal government killed northern gateway, a project that if it were up and running today, would be bringing untold billions of dollars to the Canadian economy and increasing the price of oil that we could have sold on the world market. However, the Liberal government unilaterally killed a project that had previously been approved by the National Energy Board.

In addition to that, the Liberal government, looking at the proposed energy east project, changed the regulatory provisions contained in the legislation and made upstream and downstream emissions something that had to be considered by the NEB, to the point where TransCanada pulled completely out of that project. That project, which could have been a nation-building project, delivering oil from western Canada to the east coast to their refineries to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, because of the Liberal government, was killed.

What is left? It is the infamous Trans Mountain Kinder Morgan project. The Liberal government has no intention, in my view, of following through on its promise to get that built. Right now, again in my opinion, the Liberal Party is simply doing electoral calculus on how many votes it can gain by not committing to completing this project before the next election. If the Liberals feel they can get more votes in British Columbia and Quebec by stopping this project, then that is what they are going to do.

This is nothing more than a political exercise, but the collateral damage is Canadians, particularly in western Canada, in my province of Saskatchewan and my neighbouring province of Alberta. The energy-producing provinces of the country are the collateral damage of the Liberal government's refusal to honour a promise.

Last but certainly not least, I would point out for all Canadians who may be listening to this debate what the Liberals did with the SNC scandal, as it is now known. The budget implementation bill included, buried deep within that bill, a provision that would allow the government, should it so wish, to introduce something called a DPA, a deferred prosecution agreement. The Liberals did that because the government had been lobbied extensively by SNC-Lavalin and they thought that by introducing it in the bill, it would allow the prosecutors office an opportunity to offer a DPA to SNC-Lavalin. That did not happen, and we know what the results were: the biggest scandal in Canadian political history in the last three decades, which resulted in the former attorney general of Canada resigning, because of the inappropriate pressure put on her by the government, and in the former Treasury Board president resigning in protest over the government's handling of that very key element of the budget implementation bill.

I could go on for quite some considerable time, but I have limited time before me. Let me just conclude by going back to my opening remarks when I said that in my opinion the government did not deserve to be re-elected. I can assure the House and anyone else who may be listening to this debate that in slightly less than six months, Canadians will be able to prove my prediction to be quite accurate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Royal Assent

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, that Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures be amended by removing part 4, division 15 and 16 on immigration, citizenship and refugee protection; that these divisions compose Bill C-98; that Bill C-98 be deemed read a first time and be printed; and that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for referral to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration; that Bill C-97 retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-97 be reprinted, as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will move a unanimous consent motion.

Bill C-97 contains two significant immigration provisions that should not be part of an omnibus budget bill. Over the weekend, some 2,600 Canadians wrote to me to condemn this action. Addressing the issue of crooked consultants is not a budget bill, and closing the door to asylum seekers looking for protection here in Canada should not be hidden in an omnibus budget bill. This is an affront to the work of parliamentarians and—

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International raised the alarm about the Liberal shift in public policy to cater to the alt-right.

In Central and South America, sexual violence is rampant. Children as young as seven are faced with forced recruitment, yet the alt-right is vilifying refugees. They call it white nationalism. The Minister of Border Security is feeding into it by calling refugees asylum shoppers. With Bill C-97, they cannot even apply for protection in Canada.

If the Liberals have the courage to stand by the right to remove, will they table those changes as a stand-alone bill in the House?

Second reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today. Before I begin, I would like express support for those of my constituents who are experiencing extreme flooding and for the people of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, who are facing major challenges.

Today, I am honoured to have the opportunity to talk about our government's plan to invest in the middle class and create an economy that works for everyone.

The purpose of Bill C-97 is to implement key measures in the 2019 budget. Canadians can see that they made the right choice. Canada's economy is now among the most dynamic in the G7. Canadians have created over 900,000 jobs, and middle-class families are better off. The economy is stronger; more good, well-paid, middle-class jobs are available; and people working hard to join the middle class are getting more help. People of all ages can be proud to live and work in our economy.

As we all know, Canadian seniors have contributed a great deal to their communities throughout their lives. They have a wealth of knowledge, experience and skills that they can continue to share.

Budget 2019 recognizes the contribution that seniors have made, and we are showing our support for them by investing in their well-being. Unlike the previous government, which wanted to raise the age of retirement, our government made a commitment to help seniors. Budget 2019 helps seniors get actively involved in society, including taking paid work if they wish, and will help them transition to retirement when they decide to leave the workforce.

Furthermore, we want to make low-income seniors more financially secure if they decide to remain in the workforce. Our government understands that many seniors choose to remain in the workforce after retirement. Some do so to maintain social ties to their communities, while others like earning extra income to spend on their children or grandchildren. Some simply love what they do and want to continue doing it, which is good for our society. No matter the reason, we all benefit from their skills.

Sadly, some seniors are penalized for choosing to stay at work. The government reduces their guaranteed income supplement benefits or allowance for every dollar earned over the annual GIS earnings exemption of $3,500.

Self-employment income is not eligible for the exemption under existing law. That means they lose their hard-earned income. The bill we are debating today would fix that problem. It would allow seniors to keep more of their GIS benefits or allowance and more of what they earn by enhancing the GIS earnings exemption beginning with the July 2020-21 benefit year.

This measure would extend eligibility for the earnings exemption to self-employment income. It would increase the amount of the annual exemption from $3,500 to $5,000. This measure includes a partial exemption of 50%, to apply on up to $10,000 of annual employment and self-employment income beyond the $5,000 threshold. That means eligible seniors could get a full or partial exemption on up to $15,000 of income. In Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, this measure will change seniors' lives. Seniors who want to continue working will be able to keep more money in their pockets.

We also want to empower seniors in their communities. Our government recognizes that not all seniors can or want to remain in the workforce. We know that those who retire often face isolation in their retirement years, a situation sometimes made worse by ageism, poor health, reduced mobility, poverty and even abuse. Fortunately, we can help improve matters.

My colleagues are surely aware of the new horizons for seniors program. It seeks to eliminate barriers to inclusion and mobilize seniors within their communities with initiatives ranging from new equipment for seniors centres to financial literacy classes and volunteer opportunities, to name just a few.

I have some examples from the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, from Deux-Montagnes, Saint-Eustache, Boisbriand and Rosemère. The Heritage Social Club received $25,000 to renovate its roof. Four Corners received $23,000 to convert their facilities. There is also the Centre d'action bénévole, the Cœurs joyeux club in Saint-Eustache, the Centre d'entraide Racine-Lavoie, and the Maison des citoyens in Deux-Montagnes. There are many examples of organizations like these that are changing the lives of our seniors.

Budget 2019 proposes significant additional funding of $100 million over five years and $20 million every year thereafter for the new horizons for seniors program. This additional funding will ensure that the program can continue to improve seniors' quality of life and better promote the participation and inclusion of older Canadians in their community and their workplace.

One more thing we are doing for seniors is making sure that those who are entitled to Canada pension plan benefits receive them. Isolation can have real consequences for seniors, including financial ones. Isolation or a lack of support are among the reasons why some seniors are late in applying for their pension or do not apply at all. They miss out on receiving their CPP benefits.

The CPP is a key pillar of Canada's retirement system. It provides retired Canadians with a secure, predictable income and peace of mind. Canadian workers currently need to apply to receive their CPP benefits. To help Canadian workers receive the full value of the CPP pension to which they contributed, the 2019 budget implementation bill would proactively enrol CPP contributors who are 70 or older in 2020 who are entitled to their pension. If they have not yet applied, they will receive their benefits. We will make sure that all seniors receive the CPP benefits they are entitled to.

We want to protect Canadians' pension plans. Budget 2019 goes even further so that those who contributed to a pension plan actually receive their benefits. Measures set out in this budget will ensure that the employer's defined benefit plan offers a stable and secure income and the dignified retirement Canadians expect after a lifetime of hard work.

In recent years, we have seen how the security of some private pension plans is put at risk when an employer goes bankrupt. In order to give Canadians greater peace of mind about their retirement, the budget implementation bill proposes new measures to enhance the security of workplace pension plans in the event that the company goes bankrupt.

The measures proposed in Budget 2019 will make insolvency proceedings fairer, more transparent and more accessible for pensioners and workers. They will set higher expectations for, and better oversight of, the behaviour of federally incorporated firms. They will strengthen pension security and the viability of federally regulated pensions.

In summary, for our seniors, the 2019 budget proposals build on our government's strong record of ensuring retirement security for Canadians so that they can enjoy the dignified retirement they deserve after a lifetime of hard work. These proposals are also an important part of our government's plan to create an economy that works for everyone, including seniors.

There is one more very important thing in budget 2019. Our government is introducing the Canada training benefit, a new tool that will help working Canadians find the time and money to upgrade their skills and progress in their careers.

The benefit will enable working Canadians to take four weeks of training every four years and will provide up to $1,000 to help pay for training. The income support will help them cover loss of income. They will have the security of knowing they have a job to come back to when their training is done.

The bill before us proposes the first phase, the Canada training credit. For people who are currently in school, budget 2019 is also investing in 84,000 new work placements per year to help young people acquire new skills and build their resumés.

In closing, Canada's labour market and economy are evolving. With budget 2019 and Bill C-97, we are helping students and workers of all ages prepare for good jobs now and in the future.

[Lorrie McKee, Director, Public Affairs and Stakeholder Relations, Greater Toronto Airports Authority]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for your time and attention.

My name is Lorrie McKee. I am the director of public affairs and stakeholder relations for Toronto Pearson. I'm here with my colleague, Greg Owen, who is the associate director responsible for government agency programs.

Toronto Pearson has been a long-time advocate for changes to address the challenges in the current model for CATSA. As several of my colleagues have mentioned, we have never questioned the safety or security provided by CATSA. In fact, we applaud CATSA leadership and the front-line employees for the security screening service that they provide.

However, the lack of multi-year funding to properly plan and accommodate growth and to invest in new technologies and new requirements added to CATSA's mandate over the years without additional funding has led to globally uncompetitive wait times, flight delays, missed connections and inconvenience to passengers. This threatens Canada's economic objectives, making our country less attractive to foreign direct investment, tourism and trade.

Toronto Pearson is Canada's largest airport. Last year, it processed almost 50 million passengers, making it the ninth-busiest airport in North America, the second for international traffic, and the fifth most-connected airport in the world. CATSA screened approximately 20.5 million passengers in 2018.

Given the hub role that Pearson plays to connect travellers to other Canadian cities and countries around the world, how security screening is delivered at Pearson matters to Canada's economy and this country's desire to diversify trade and grow jobs.

For many years, the allocation model has meant that CATSA at Toronto Pearson has received insufficient funds to deliver a global competitive level of service. Since the fall of 2014, the GTAA has worked with CATSA to purchase additional screening services to reduce wait times. In 2018, we invested $10.7 million to support security screening. This, combined with additional investment by the government in CATSA, has improved the situation.

However, wait times during many peak travel times remain globally uncompetitive. We therefore welcome this governance change to an industry-led, non-profit entity.

We are committed to working with our colleague airports and leaders in the airline sector to stand up this new entity. Like the airport authority model, we believe that a non-profit commercial model will allow security screening to be delivered in a more globally competitive manner with a clearly defined regulatory regime applied by Transport Canada.

International travellers have come to expect a better travel experience. Hong Kong, Heathrow and other global airports have proven that it is possible to maintain security and process 95% of passengers in five minutes or less.

With respect to division 12 of Bill C-97, we're generally supportive of the text as introduced. There are two changes that we propose.

The first is removal or clarification of the charging principle in paragraph 26(1)(d), which provides “that charges may be used only to recover costs for security screening services”. It appears to preclude raising funds to support any investments in innovation or process improvements, which has historically been an issue for CATSA under the appropriations model. We note that there was no similar charging principle when Nav Canada commercialized.

The second is that, for added clarity and flexibility with respect to the imposition of charges on passengers or other persons required to undergo security screening, subclause 24(1) should be amended to add “and/or” so that the option exists for the new entity to introduce a charge for non-passenger screening, but that it's not considered mandatory.

With respect to the setting of charges, the new entity will be limited to increasing charges at or below the rate of inflation. Larger increases are possible, but only following a public process and review by the Canadian Transportation Agency. While we appreciate the rationale for this process, we also would like to point out that such a restriction on the setting of charges may have an impact on the ability of the new entity to raise funds cheaply.

Finally, with this shift to a commercially based security screening service, we suggest that the government capitalize on this opportunity to work with industry to simplify the regulatory framework for security screening. We understand that a similar exercise was undertaken at the time of the Nav Canada commercialization and was an important step in enabling the new entity to establish itself quickly with the confidence of all stakeholders, including the financial markets.

Thank you. I'd be pleased to take any questions.

The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The new structure Bill C-97 would put in place would generate efficiencies of $40 million at least—and we've only talked about one problem.

Would we, through privatization—because finally, that is really the term—reach these enormous efficiencies of scale that would allow you to recover $40 million, by reducing employees' salaries or reducing personnel, for instance? Where would you go and get that?

[Ferio Pugliese, Senior Vice-President, Air Canada Express and Government Relations, Air Canada]

Good morning, honourable Chair and members of the committee.

Good morning everyone.

My name is Ferio Pugliese. I am the senior vice-president of Air Canada Express and government relations.

First I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before you today.

I'm here before you today to discuss what we believe, if done right, to be one of the single most important changes to air transportation in Canada since the devolution of airports.

The proposal to create a new designated screening authority, DSA, to replace CATSA in Bill C-97, comes after years of industry and public requests to improve the system, based on thoughtful examination by airlines, airports and the travelling public. Transport Canada has been supportive of our work in this area, and we're pleased to see significant movement in this regard.

Before I dig deeper into the topic of the new screening authority, I'd like to share with you a bit of context about Air Canada.

Just over 10 years ago, coming off the verge of bankruptcy, Air Canada embarked on a vision to transform itself into a Canadian global champion. Last year, we served over 51 million passengers, a 65% increase since 2009. We now serve 220 destinations across six continents, having added 120 new routes in the last five years alone. Based on our growth, our three main Canadian hubs now rank in the world's top 50 most connected international cities. Aside from Canada, only the United States and China, the two largest markets for air service, have three or more cities in this select ranking. Air Canada remains committed to advancing this vision.

Recent economic impact studies by KPMG and InterVISTAS have identified our total economic output to be $47 billion, including a net impact of $21 billion to the GDP of Canada and over $1.9 billion in direct tax revenues to governments.

Our 36,000-member team, 6,000 of whom were hired only in the last three years, support this growth, and without these dedicated individuals we could not deliver our product to our customers. In total, our operations support 190,000 jobs across our country. Our commitment to serve communities and customers underscores our vested interest in ensuring that CATSA reform meets the needs of the industry, and most importantly the travelling public.

A new model is necessary to improve efficiencies and reduce wait times, delayed departures and missed connections for travellers. Current inefficiencies have resulted in lost economic opportunities and contributed to a worsening perception and inferior travel experience for customers travelling through and within Canada.

While this reform is welcomed, Air Canada cautions that in order to get it right, it must be done in a thoughtful, well-planned and fiscally responsible manner. We encourage the committee to take the time required to coordinate and have thoughtful consultation from all parties.

We're concerned by the provision that allows for the sale of CATSA assets to the new DSA and the impact it will have on the cost to travellers. We do not support having the balance sheet of a new entity that is burdened with long-term debt in the transfer of assets. It is suggested that these assets will be transferred at a negotiated value, of which the new entity will need to use operating revenues derived from rates, fees and charges to not only cover operating expenses but to also service its newly acquired significant debt.

The consequences are simple: increased cost of travel and reduced funding for necessary investments in technology, processes and practices. We have one opportunity to do this right, and the closest proxy we have to this is the government transfer of the air navigation system to NavCan back in 1996, which was done with adequate time and consultation. We suggest a similar approach with CATSA reform.

Finally, I wish to highlight and remind the committee that air transport is also undergoing the most active, dynamic period of regulatory reform since the early 1990s. Among other reforms, industry is currently working with government to finalize the air passenger protection regulations, APPR.

Government's timelines on this policy are simply not realistic, and quite frankly are irresponsible, for the following reasons: rushed implementation without consideration of operational realities leading to unintended consequences; policy based on flawed and inaccurate regulatory impact analysis statements; and, air travel, again, that will get more expensive and less accessible for Canadians.

Finally, our airline, along with others, is facing one of the most significant challenges the industry has faced since 9/11: the grounding of the Boeing 737 Max. As a result, resources are fully dedicated to managing schedules, preserving service and managing route suspensions. While our team has done an excellent job in recovering our operations, the strain on resources is significant, leaving little capacity to deal with other issues.

As well, a significant level of resources is needed as the airline prepares customers and operations for the eventual re-entry of service.

To top that, the industry is now being asked to embark on a significant CATSA reform at an expedited pace. To suggest that complex negotiations begin in short order is undermining not only to the industry, but to the travelling public, and will lead to inferior outcomes.

Before we embark on the next stages of CATSA reform, we implore you to consider the following recommendations: First, allow this industry to get past the Max grounding. Second, delay the implementation of the APPR to provide for more and much-needed consultation. Third, in the coming months, allow airports and carriers enough time to consider how to create an industry-leading screening authority that begins with the transfer of assets at a nominal value.

Air Canada supports this CATSA reform, done right, which means that consultation and careful consideration of legislation must take place. This cannot be done with the introduction of provisions in the budget omnibus bill where we have virtually no ability to make changes.

[Howard Liebman, Senior Director, Government and Community Affairs, Air Transat]

Good morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Howard Liebman. I am the Senior Director of Government and Community Affairs, and I represent Air Transat.

By way of introduction, I want to express support for the presentation of our association, the National Airlines Council of Canada, and thank our president and chief executive officer, Massimo Bergamini, for his testimony.

Air Transat is the second largest international passenger airline service in Canada. It is based in Montreal and also has secondary bases in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Quebec; it provides airline services at over 20 transit points in Canada, toward 65 popular destinations, with a fleet of 35 large commercial carriers and over 3,000 dedicated on-board staff throughout the country.

In 2018, we transported more than four and a half million passengers, and our commitment to service excellence was recognized when we were chosen as the recipient of the Skytrax award for best leisure airline in the world.

We are currently transitioning to an all-Airbus fleet, with the imminent arrival of our first, and North America's first, fuel-efficient Airbus A321neo long range.

This commitment to serving and providing the best possible experience to our passengers has been part of our collective DNA since we first flew in November 1987.

Airport security screening is a vital component of the overall aviation ecosystem. There is no alternative for all stakeholders—for travellers, air carriers, airports and government—but to get this right.

We take note of the comments you just heard from the airlines council that omnibus budget Bill C-97 has raised crucial questions in such areas as funding and governance and that, consequently, it is imperative that this process not be rushed.

Air Transat stands ready to marshal our three decades of expertise to engage constructively on this, and we underline that this process merits the full attention of this honourable committee, to ensure that Canada maintains a safe, efficient and productive airport security screening system. We're instructed by the precedent of the commercialization of air navigation services in Canada, and are mindful of the roughly two-year timeline in establishing Nav Canada.

I will close my opening statement by taking a step back to share with you some important context. As our industry engages in this process with the necessary expertise and resources, it is imperative that this committee appreciate the breadth and magnitude of concurrent regulatory initiatives targeting the airline industry. They include air passenger protection regulations, new pilot flight duty time regulations, clean fuel standards and related environmental initiatives, accessibility regulations, consultation on equal remuneration for federally regulated contract workers in the air transport sector, and more.

I wish to underline that this is in no way a critique of any of these important initiatives. On the contrary, the industry is deeply engaged on each one. The point here—and it's a crucial one—is that all of these significant regulatory changes are happening in parallel. In addition to the overriding imperative of safety and security, which must never be compromised, there is a capacity issue to ensure all stakeholders get this right.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the airline industry is an economic locomotive for the Canadian tourism industry and, indeed, for the entire Canadian economy. The individual and cumulative costs of these regulatory initiatives—borne by users, by the industry, but let's face it, ultimately by travellers—must be fully considered.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the 139th meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to order.

Before we go on to today's agenda, I have two study budgets that I need support from the committee for adoption: $15,200 for Bill C-97; and $1,500 for a study of American-plated vehicles, which your colleague requested we look at.

All those in favour of the two study budgets that are before us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

No. I can clarify that for the committee.

First of all, the Speaker ruled this afternoon that the provisions around omnibus bills do not apply to this bill because it is a budget implementation bill. The Speaker has ruled that this is an appropriate bill. The second is that even though the finance committee has requested us to study division 15, if this committee chooses to study both divisions 15 and 16, a report can be made on each of those divisions and go to finance. Any amendments that we would be proposing would be deemed notice having been given by the time that Bill C-97 reaches clause-by-clause in committee.

We don't need a request from the finance committee to do this. It could have done so. It requested that we do division 15. We are now telling them that we are also doing division 16—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

With that, I want to thank you for your patience and your answers.

We are going to adjourn, but before colleagues disperse, I have two administrative things to do. First of all is to write to Mr. Easter, chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, who sits exactly two chairs away from me—I'm going to save the stamp—that we take on part 4, division 10, of Bill C-97. I need a motion to approve that.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Fine, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to do it that way.

We Liberals are going to propose what would ultimately amount to a study on part 4, division 15, with at least three meetings involving the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the officials.

Then we would have a separate study on part 4, division 16, with at least three meetings with the Minister of Border Security and departmental officials. That would take place within the timeline proposed by the current letter. Although the current letter only asks us to look at division 15, my proposed changes will clarify that we're being asked to do 15.

We're also going to take it upon ourselves to do division 16, and then...I know you're asking that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration treat what we've done as being deemed proposed during clause-by-clause analysis of Bill C-97. I think we're going to propose to address your concern in a slightly different way, by having the committee invite the Standing Committee on Finance to consider any proposed amendments pertaining to those parts to be deemed proposed during clause-by-clause analysis of Bill C-97 in a separate motion at the end.

I think that gets us to the same place, but rather than having at least eight meetings, we would having at least six, broken up as proposed. Rather than having the ministers at the same single meeting, we'd have the ministers come with respect to the divisions that involve them. So division 15 will be the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and the second one will be the Minister of Border Security, and their related officials.

In this way I think we end up with at least four hours of meetings on each topic involving civil society or other witnesses and two hours of meetings involving ministers and government officials on each topic. That should allow us to do this in the proposed time frame. That allows us to report back to the finance committee by May 17, including translation time and recommendation review, which would obviously need to happen no later than May 15, I hope, if everyone is able to work quickly.

Frankly, very tight timelines will require meetings outside the normal schedule, but I think we have enough time in the schedule to do that.

That's the contextual background for it.

Bill C-97—Notice of time allocation motion

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

While I am on my feet, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

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

The current impression is that the text seems too vague. It refers to the appointment of an administrative entity but the wording is so vague that it is impossible to determine the nature or identity of that entity. The only thing we learn on page 207 is that it will be independent. However the bill as such is very vague. It does not specify whether it will be an independent entity and does not indicate either if the relevant provisions will be included in the bill or in regulations, as that is possible. We thus have the impression that things are vague and that there are still a lot of factors to be determined going forward.

This legislative proposal seems rushed and it seems to have been prepared in the wrong order. We should first have established this panel of independent experts, then included the independent entity in Bill C-97, or in regulations. Things were simply poorly executed, but that is not the fault of the people we have in front of us today. Clearly things were done in the wrong order and did not follow a process which would satisfy all of the members of the committee, including myself.

Ms. Lavoie, my question is about the credit for the employees. The bill proposes that there be a $55,000 cap for each salary that can be deducted as a labour expense, if I understood correctly. How did we arrive at this amount? Would it be possible to know more? Is this the result of consultations on the average salary in journalism organizations?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'm glad to hear that Mr. Whalen is eager to support my motion. That would be fantastic. I will be done shortly, and then a vote will be called. I would love to see the government support my motion, so that we can get on with the study and, in fact, overturn the decision of the finance committee. Mr. Chair, that moment is coming up, and I'll be watching to see whether or not the Liberal members will support my motion.

This Liberal government is apparently saying that what is happening in Australia is just fine, too. We can trust that the Australian system for asylum seekers is good enough, too. On what basis? There doesn't even appear to be a review mechanism on this. What if Australia is found guilty of crimes against humanity for its treatment of refugees? We still have an information-sharing agreement with them. Does that mean that we still trust their asylum system?

This is why you can't ram these changes into a budget bill. These are serious questions that need to be studied at length. Frankly, the actions of this government are unacceptable.

The changes in Bill C-97 would also make asylum claims ineligible if they are pending in one of these countries. That is, the Liberals would like to reject a claim before any other jurisdiction has even heard it. What is the justification for that?

Let's not just take my word for this. How about the opinions of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and Amnesty International? It appears that on Friday, April 26, they launched an email speak-out campaign, which I assume everyone around this table is aware of. The email reads:

I am emailing the Standing Committee on Finance and my member of Parliament to join the voices of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL), the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and Amnesty International Canada in calling on the finance committee to request the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) to study all amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) proposed in Bill C-97.

Changes to refugee rights should not be rushed through an omnibus budget bill, particularly not changes such as these which will have significant impacts on refugee rights.

The organizations above have warned that these amendments could mean that thousands of refugees may be denied an impartial hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board, and that a proposed oral hearing before an officer instead of an independent tribunal member will not sufficiently protect the right of refugee claimants to a full and fair hearing.

The finance committee, while well-positioned to debate matters of finance, does not possess the subject matter expertise to consider the far-reaching rights impacts of the proposed IRPA amendments tucked inside C-97.

I ask that the finance committee request that the CIMM [committee] study these amendments thoroughly, without rushing them through, in order to allow a full, fair and public debate on the important implications these amendments will have on refugee rights in Canada.

The reason I know that everyone around this table is aware of this is that every single individual who has signed on to this campaign has had their email sent to all members of the finance committee, the chair and vice-chairs of this committee, the Minister of Immigration, the Minister for Border Security, the Prime Minister, and their local MP. As of Monday morning, I have received over 2,600 emails. I can't be sure of the exact count at this time because the emails are coming in so fast that my office's general inbox has been continually crashing since last Friday morning.

Recently, the UNHCR representative in Canada wrote an op-ed in which he stated that because the PRRA still exists, Canada is still meeting the bar of not breaking international law.

Oh, how we have fallen, if this is the bar. We've gone from a Liberal government that claims it provides the gold standard, to “Hey, we're not breaking international laws”.

Canadians expect better. We're supposed to be setting the standard that other countries strive to live up to. It is not what the PRRA is even meant for. According to the most recent government review of PRRA in 2016, “one of the key findings from the previous evaluation was that the program had evolved from its original intent of providing a safety net for migrants requiring removal to providing failed asylum seekers one more step in the asylum system, evolving into a de facto appeal mechanism.”

Thus, PRRA is supposed to be a final safety net to ensure that Canada is not putting a person at imminent risk of persecution or death by removing them. It was not intended to be just another appeal stage. It's absolutely not intended to become a parallel refugee hearing system, yet this is what the Liberal government is attempting to do as a “fix” for the increase in inland asylum claims.

In his op-ed, the UNHCR representative speaks of a successful irregular asylum seeker originally from Haiti. He notes that the budget 2019 changes would bar people like him from appearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board to have their claim heard, but in his next breath he suggests that it's okay because the pre-removal risk assessment process exists.

However, his example highlights a serious flaw in this approach. PRRA is provided “pre-removal”. Haiti is one of the 14 countries for which Canada has administrative deferral removal or temporary suspension of removal. Those countries are currently deemed too unsafe to deport an individual to. With no removal, there is no pre-removal risk assessment. Individuals like Pierre will be left in limbo, unable to have their claim heard by anyone, and unable to formalize their status in Canada one way or another, unless the government changes how the PRRA works.

PRRA currently also does not guarantee a claim hearing. In his op-ed, the UNHCR representative states that he was informed by the government that no one will be deported without a hearing. Does this mean that the government has acknowledged that the pre-removal risk assessment is insufficient and that it is planning to add more to that process? Why add more procedures and mechanisms to the PRRA when they already exist at the IRB? This is the definition of duplication and inefficiency. Who will be trained to hear these claims? Where will the claims be heard? How quickly will they be decided? What capacity will IRCC have to hear these expanded PRRAs so that a backlog similar to that at the IRB doesn't occur?

To further highlight this needless duplication and inefficiency, when the Conservatives overhauled the refugee determination system, PRRAs were supposed to be moved over to IRB. The IRB has been waiting for cabinet authorization for this move since 2013. The Conservatives never got around to it and the Liberals haven't either. Instead, the PRRA is staying with the IRCC and is being expanded. Now it will be a de facto additional refugee determination hearing stream. Is this what it's meant to be under Bill C-97?

This is what happens when you ignore an issue for years. The failure to provide leadership leaves a vacuum that's filled with anti-refugee rhetoric and misinformation. Then, in a last-ditch effort for re-election, the government caves to those voices and comes up with a scheme to look tough on border security.

The IRB already does what the Liberals seem to envision the PRRA becoming, and that's not what the PRRA is for. This way, they think they can avoid standing up to the President of the United States and calling out his anti-refugee policies for what they are. They can pretend they are tough, and they can claim they still believe in the #WelcomeToCanada ideals.

The reality is that none of this is accomplished. It makes the system more complex and more costly, and it increases the risk of a person in genuine need of protection being put in danger. This is why we need to be studying this provision of Bill C-97 at this committee. This is why these changes should be included in a stand-alone bill. This is why these changes have deep flaws, create more questions than answers, and could put people's lives at risk. Frankly, I would suspect that if this passes, it would be challenged in the courts. I firmly believe that.

Why is the government doing this? Is it all in an effort for re-election? Is it to look tough on borders?

I implore the members of this committee to vote in favour of my motion. It literally is the very least we can do about these provisions.

Mr. Chair, I heard from the eagerness of Mr. Whalen that perhaps he and all the Liberal members will support my motion, and then we can get on with doing the work this committee is charged to do.

I would also suggest that a key difference with my motion is that there is no timeline tied to it, as opposed to the finance committee, which has tied the other section of the immigration bill to its study. This cannot be rushed. We can't jam it through a budget bill and make it into a confidence vote and think that it's okay. To rush through the study of this would be a disservice not only to asylum seekers and to Canadians, but to all of us across the international stage.

Canada remains and can remain a beacon of hope. That's what we started to work on after the 2015 election. We were that beacon of hope, and where are we now with this kind of provision?

I truly hope that members will look at the provisions within Bill C-97 and think for themselves what this means—not just taking orders from someone, not just reading the messages being given to them, but thinking about it and what it means for the people on the other side.

Effectively, if those provisions pass, individuals who want to claim asylum in Canada, if they've made a claim in those Five Eyes countries, will be ineligible to make a claim. If those individuals have a pending claim, they would be ineligible. I hear Ms. Bendayan saying that I'm incorrect. Well, I hope that I am, except that I'm not. If I'm incorrect, that means that CARL is incorrect. That means that Amnesty International is incorrect. That means that the BC Civil Liberties Association is incorrect. That means that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is incorrect. That means that everyone in this field, who are experts, are incorrect. It's funny how that is.

I know the government will fall back and say that the UNHCR is the saviour, because according to them, PRRA is the way to go. The evidence has already shown, and the government's own internal report actually says, that PRRA should never be the de facto appeal process for asylum seekers. That's what it is becoming. It's becoming the de facto appeal process.

If members on the Liberal side think that is the way to go, to use the last resort as the mechanism to determine whether or not a person is eligible to seek asylum here as a regular stream, I guess this is the ticket. However, if you believe in better than that, if you believe in an independent judicial process to make asylum claims, then you need to keep intact the process that we have in place and to honour it. Honour it for the asylum seekers, honour it for Canada's reputation and honour it for humanity. That's what is required.

I look forward to members voting on my motion. If the government members truly support shining a light on this section of the omnibus bill, they will support my motion. If they want a thorough study of this, they will support my motion, because anything less will only reinforce the very fact that they do not want thorough debate and study on this bill, that they don't want Canadians to really know the fact that they're talking out of both sides of their mouths and that they don't really want Canadians to know they are bringing through this horrific bill at the expense of humanity for political gain.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, the lack of political will to lead on this issue and to take the necessary steps to actually back up rhetoric with action began to create a serious vacuum in the national conversation. Misinformation began spreading online, integrating insulting fearmongering and scapegoating asylum seekers. The Conservative Party's fundraising jumped on board, perhaps because they realized public sentiment might be swayed by this misinformation.

On March 19, 2018, the Minister of Immigration caved to Conservative pressure at this committee and stated that he was fine with using the terms “illegal” and “irregular” interchangeably. This is despite section 133 of IRPA clearly stating that it is not illegal to cross between authorized ports of entry if it is done to make an asylum claim. Even the Liberal member for Scarborough—Rouge Park, who no longer sits on this committee, challenged the minister's comments—albeit after the minister left. He challenged the departmental officials who stuck around.

This was followed by the Prime Minister himself getting it flat out wrong on April 25 in suggesting that “It is indeed illegal to cross the border between border crossings.” Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Immigration has apologized for this serious mischaracterization of the facts and the impact it has.

As we see quite regularly, when Liberal members of this committee see fit to challenge the Conservatives, who are all too happy to label asylum seekers as “illegals”, the Conservatives simply respond with, quote, your minister said they were too. I've asked on numerous occasions for the minister to retract his comments, but he refuses, further allowing misinformation to spread.

By mid-2018, the trend has not significantly changed, so again, instead of actually doing something about it, the Liberal government decided to make it look like they were doing something about it. They created a new position of minister and appointed Minister Blair as Minister for Border Security. This marked another step in the Liberal government's move away from #WelcometoCanada and a step towards caving to anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiments by trying to advertise it: “Hey, we're tough on borders.”

Again, rhetoric and naming a new minister had little impact. By the end of 2018, 19,419 individuals made an asylum claim after entering into Canada irregularly, representing about 35% of the total of 55,020 inland asylum claims. Now, facing re-election, having failed to lead on this issue and instead allowing misinformation and anti-refugee rhetoric to gain a foothold in this country, the Liberals have decided they need to look tougher, so we have these changes. They know that these changes blow a huge hole in their claims of being humanitarian champions, so they don't want them to be examined too closely. It's why this is pushed through in a budget bill. They don't even want to send these portions of the bill to this committee. That was clearly outlined in the letter to this committee from the finance committee chair back on April 9, 2019.

This is an attempt to talk out of both sides of their mouths, nothing more. To potential supporters who care about our humanitarian obligations, it's #WelcometoCanada. To those who criticize them, citing misinformation on a border crisis, it's, “Look what we did. We're tough on asylum shoppers.” It is frankly shameful.

Humanitarian leaders don't try to shut down their borders during a global refugee crisis. Let's be clear about this. Canada is not experiencing a border crisis. Canada is not experiencing a refugee crisis. Due to our geographical position relative to where global crises are, we are merely seeing an increase in asylum seekers coming here in search of safety.

Globally, there are 68.5 million forcibly displaced persons, and 25.4 million are UN-registered refugees. Forty million are internally displaced, and 3.1 million are asylum seekers. These are record levels. Of course, Canada will experience an increase in asylum seekers arriving here, given the global context. We have seen elevated levels in the past. In 2008, there were 36,920 asylum seekers to Canada. In 2000, there were 37,845 claims. In 2001, there were 44,695 claims.

No one was suggesting that we were dealing with a crisis. So what changed? Tragically, it was exactly what I've been warning this government about since 2017: anti-refugee and anti-immigrant sentiment surged in Europe during the Syrian refugee crisis. We saw the rise of fascists, nationalists and anti-immigrant parties such as the Golden Dawn, in Greece, and the Party for Freedom, in the Netherlands, to name just two. We saw European countries outright close their doors to Syrian refugees fleeing violence that included state-sanctioned torture, the use of chemical weapons on civilians and various crimes against humanity committed by ISIS.

I was proud that Canadians did not adopt that approach. Instead, we lived up to our humanitarian ideals and responsibilities and reacted. But in my speech in January 2017, during the emergency debate, I warned the government that this outpouring of humanitarian spirit could not be taken for granted, that if true leadership wasn't shown regarding the influx of asylum seekers that Canada would not be immune to what was happening abroad. I'm not happy to say that I told you so. We have now seen public opinion in Canada moving away from accepting refugees and asylum seekers. This is nothing short of a failure of leadership on the part of the Liberal government.

Why is it so important for this committee to undertake a deep study of these changes? Well, let's discuss that.

Since I don't have a lot of faith in this committee, given past practices, we have to really understand the issues at hand. Part 4, division 16, of Bill C-97 is eight pages of legislative changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. One of the proposed changes would extend the bar on applications for the pre-removal risk assessment and applications for the permanent resident status on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds for refugee claimants who have applied to the Federal Court for judicial review. This in effect serves as a deterrent or a punishment for refugees who use the legal recourses they have under Canadian law.

Given delays between an original decision of the refugee protection division, the refugee appeal decision and the Federal Court decision, it could leave claimants in limbo with a precarious and vulnerable status for extra years. Perhaps the plan is that by extending this bar the government is hoping that the claimants will just be removed from Canada before they actually exhaust their legal rights that are carried through the removal before the individual becomes eligible to file the next stage appeal. However, we won't know unless we actually get a real opportunity to study these provisions.

Immigration law experts that I've spoken to have also raised serious concerns about the difficult situation this then puts refugee claimants in. These changes, along with the others that will be discussed soon, effectively create separate pathways instead of the current more straight-line approach that a person can take to try to establish permanent status here. Refugee claimants must now decide. Do they risk requesting judicial review? Do they ignore their right to judicial review and just hope a pre-removal risk assessment is successful? Do they ignore their right to either of those and instead make a H and C application? Immigration law experts have explained to me that often the difference between a failed pre-removal risk assessment can be a successful H and C or a successful PRRA that came out of a failed H and C and can be very difficult to anticipate. They are the experts. It appears that those provisions could put people in danger, because the merits of their cases could now be less important than the particular form they were advised to fill out.

When we're dealing with refugee claimants—individuals and families who could face persecution or death if they return to their country of origin—we must ensure that decisions are made on the merits of their claims and that they have access to their legal rights here. Choosing one application should not bar them from another long enough to deport them. This is willfully avoiding our international obligations and potentially putting lives at risk. We won't be able to know the extent of this risk if we don't closely study this change and hear from the experts on this at the committee. It would be shameful if we don't.

We also need to examine the likelihood that this would drive individuals underground as they try to wait out this extended bar. There is no good reason to incentivize refugee claimants from hiding in Canada so they can stay here long enough to be allowed to take the next appeal. By extending the bar, however, that's what we're doing.

What is the justification for this? Why would we create this incentive? Again, we won't know until we study it, and this government appears dead set against that, at least based on the letter from the finance committee chair that was sent to this committee on April 9. That's why I have to table this motion.

We have a lengthy study. We need a lengthy study of these provisions. It's absurd that the government would make these changes in a budget bill. It should be a stand-alone bill. At the very minimum, these changes should be studied at length by this committee, not by the finance committee.

Next, we have a very strange change that would grant new powers to the Governor in Council to suspend the processing of applications from citizens or nationals of a foreign state or territory for temporary resident visas, work permits and study permits. This would apply to cases where 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.

At first glance, this appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Why does the government need this power? In what ways would this power be used and for what purpose?

Looking at the provision more closely, it seems that the Liberal government wants to engage in an act of collective punishment against citizens of a state whose government isn't doing what ours wants. That seems fundamentally unfair and possibly discriminatory. After all, a cornerstone of our immigration system is that each application is processed and decided on the individual merit of each applicant. We do not discriminate or give preferential treatment based on the country someone comes from, but these changes appear to allow the government to do just that. To punish an individual applicant because of their country of origin's ability or willingness to issue travel documents to someone else has nothing to do with the merits of that application. This would be a stark departure from that cornerstone principle. It's also one that could have far-reaching implications if the powers were actually used.

Why is it in this budget bill? Why is the finance committee studying this change and its possible far-reaching implications? This simply makes no sense. It is a significant change that's being sneaked through in a nearly 400-page omnibus budget bill, allowing potentially flawed legislation to slip through the cracks. The government never mentioned publicly that this was a power they needed. They offer no justification whatsoever.

The immigration committee must examine this provision closely and thoroughly. Ramming it through is simply unacceptable.

The changes that are really igniting experts' rage are the ones that effectively entrench and expand the safe third country agreement. At the very minimum, these provisions prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these changes should be discussed by this committee and not by the finance committee. If this government were serious about living up to its international obligations, these changes would be made in a stand-alone bill on which this committee could undertake a thorough study. Instead, the Liberal government is ramming these changes through in an omnibus budget bill and allowing only the finance committee to look at it.

Proposed section 306 of Bill C-97 amends subsection 101(1) of IRPA by adding paragraph 101(1)(c.1). This new paragraph would render a claim automatically ineligible for referral to the refugee protection division of the IRB. It reads as follows:

the claimant has, before making a claim for refugee protection in Canada, made a claim for refugee protection to a country other than Canada, and the fact of its having been made has been confirmed in accordance with an agreement or arrangement entered into by Canada and that country for the purpose of facilitating information sharing to assist in the administration and enforcement of their immigration and citizenship laws

This is troubling for a number of reasons.

First, this takes the safe third country agreement beyond just an agreement between countries, and instead formalizes it in law. Given the ongoing debate and the fact that the safe third country agreement's constitutionality is being challenged in court at this time, this step should not be buried in a budget bill and only studied by the finance committee. That's irresponsible governance at best.

To make matters worse, much of the basis for the call to suspend the safe third country agreement stems from the fact that the United States is not currently a safe country for the asylum seekers. I will outline those arguments in a minute.

This argument matters because IRPA currently requires continual review of any country designated as a safe third country to examine, among other things, “its policies and practices with respect to claims under the [1951] Refugee Convention and...obligations under the [1984] Convention Against Torture”, and “its human rights record”. However, it does not appear that the proposed change in clause 306 of Bill C-97 is subject to the same level of review. Instead, it appears that all that matters is that Canada has an information-sharing agreement with a third country. Many have suggested that this implies the Five Eyes countries: Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. I've spoken at length about why the United States is not a safe country for asylum seekers, so I won't recap all of those examples. However, I will speak to some new information.

In January, the office of the inspector general in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a report. Under the heading “Key Takeaway”, it wrote:

The total number of children separated from a parent or guardian by immigration authorities is unknown. Pursuant to a June 2018 Federal District Court order, HHS has thus far identified 2,737 children in its care at that time who were separated from their parents. However, thousands of children may have been separated during an influx that began in 2017, before the accounting required by the Court, and HHS has faced challenges in identifying separated children.

So far, we know that at least one of these children, seven-year-old Jakelin Caal, has tragically lost her life due to these policies. An autopsy found that the indigenous girl, originally from Guatemala, died from a bacterial infection while detained by the U.S. Border Patrol. Jakelin is one of two children who have died. But now we learned, last week, that the U.S. government is actively looking into housing migrant children at Guantanamo Bay.

I wish I were kidding. I wish this wasn't true, but it is. However, this is the country that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have claimed remains a safe country for asylum seekers, a country that is shopping around the idea of sending migrant children to detention in the same offshore detention centre it holds terrorism suspects. It is unconscionable.

We also have to look at the other Five Eyes countries, which these changes would expand the safe third country agreement to. In a similar fashion to what the U.S. is now exploring, Australia has had a deeply troubling approach to preventing asylum seekers from even arriving. For years now, Australia has been sending and redirecting boats with asylum seekers to offshore detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru Island.

The United Nations ruled in 2016 that Australia's indefinite detention of asylum seekers on Nauru Island on secret security grounds was both arbitrary and illegal. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other associations have long spoken against the practice. In 2017, courts in Australia ordered the government to pay over $70 million to refugees and asylum seekers who have suffered physical and mental injuries while being detained in Manus Island detention centres. In fact, a 105-page communication has been sent by 17 international scholars, prepared by the Global Legal Action Network and Stanford Law School's International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, to the International Criminal Court arguing that treatment of refugees in these island facilities has reached the level of crimes against humanity.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, the Liberal government appears set on hiding significant changes to Canada's refugee determination system within an omnibus budget bill. The finance committee as we know, prior to the our recessing for the two-week break, wrote to the committee. In that letter, it clearly outlined that the finance committee would only be inviting the immigration committee to study part 4, division 15 of Bill C-97. What is explicitly omitted in that letter are the significant changes impacting the immigration refugee determination system. Mr. Chair, I think that's wrong. In fact, I think it's wrong that both of these immigration-related bills are stuck in a budget bill to begin with.

Bill C-97, as we know, contains a serious overhaul of how refugee claims will be handled in Canada. If the Liberals on the other side of the table and their colleagues in caucus and cabinet actually stood behind these changes, then I would have thought they'd be willing to have tabled this as a stand-alone piece of legislation so that it could be democratically debated and studied in our parliamentary system. Instead, it is clear that they lack the courage, frankly, to have these changes examined closely, in broad daylight, by Canadians and by parliamentarians.

If you look at the bill itself and what the implications are, I suppose I can't blame them. I wouldn't be proud to put this out there. I would want to hide under a rock and hope that nobody notices. I think that's what the government is trying to do.

If you look at the bill, you will see that eight pages of changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are embedded within a 392-page omnibus budget bill. This is an affront to the Liberals' promise to end the use of omnibus legislation. It's an affront to the Liberals' promise of sunny ways and real change, and it's an affront to claims of “Canada's Back”. This is an affront, frankly, to our democracy.

To make matters worse, they are trying to limit the study of part 4, division 16 even further by having the finance committee explicitly omit the referral of this portion of the bill to this committee.

Mr. Chair, for us to understand the context of these changes, we need to examine the actions, arguably, and more importantly the inactions, that led the government to believe that these changes are necessary. We need to look back at how we got to a place where the government thinks these actions are appropriate and justified in some way. In the full context, what we see is a government that lacked the courage to stand up for the principles and values to which it claims to hold. It is now caving to political pressure from the increasing anti-refugee rhetoric that they have lacked action in addressing.

As I've been saying for some time now, Mr. Chair, this is a problem of the government's own making, and now they've doubled down on a terrible solution to it, or what they think is a solution.

First we have the problem of ramming through this significant legislation in an omnibus bill. In its 2015 election platform, the Liberal Party announced that there would be real change and sunny ways. On omnibus bills, here's what they said:

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

The Liberal government changed the Standing Orders, but the issue is that they don't seem to find it necessary to follow their own rules if it suits them otherwise. The new standing order, specifically section 69.1, states:

(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

This is the definition of an omnibus bill according to the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

In general, an omnibus bill seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts, and is characterized by the fact that it is made up of a number of related but separate initiatives. To render an omnibus bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes, the Speaker has previously ruled that such a bill should have “one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments”.

It is my hope, of course, that the Speaker rules in favour of the point of order I made to this effect on April 10, 2019. I think when I left the House, he might have been bringing forward that ruling. I had to come to committee, so I am not quite sure what happened there.

Having said that, given the very serious nature of what is at stake should the government be able to ram through these changes, I feel it is my obligation as an elected official to raise this issue in every avenue I can. Despite these changes, the Liberal government has continued to ram through omnibus budget bills so large that former prime minister Harper's omnibus bills look like light bedtime reading. After all, who could forget last year's 582-page budget bill that snuck in the deferred prosecution agreement provisions that led to the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister's top adviser, and an other minister's office adviser all stepping down and two cabinet ministers being thrown out of the Liberal caucus? We know that this government has utterly failed in its promise to stop the use of omnibus bills to ram through those measures and avoid debate. That is not new.

Then we have the problem of what led this government into thinking that these changes were the appropriate solution. On the refugee determination system, we know that it is not new that they failed to show leadership on this as well. In January 2017, following the election of President Trump in the United States, I was granted an emergency debate in the House of Commons to discuss what we are now expecting to see from our neighbours to the south, as the new president ran on a platform of xenophobia, fearmongering and aspects of blatant racism. He ran on a vow to immediately implement a Muslim travel ban. He vowed to slash refugee resettlement and he was going to build a wall. Latin Americans fleeing violence and persecution were “bad hombres”.

By the time this emergency debate occurred, Canadians knew the story of Seidu Mohammed. He and his friend Razak Iyal crossed from the United States irregularly into Emerson, Manitoba, on Christmas Eve. Seidu was outed as a bisexual man while on a trip to Brazil by his soccer coach as he pursued his dream of becoming a professional player. As Seidu is from Ghana, that put him in immediate and potentially life-threatening danger.

This is from Amnesty International's 2017-18 report:

Consensual same-sex sexual relations between men remained a criminal offence. LGBTI people continued to face discrimination, violence and police harassment as well as extortion attempts by members of the public. In February the Speaker of Parliament stated in the media that the Constitution should be amended to make homosexuality completely illegal and punishable by law. In July he also stated in the media that Ghana would not decriminalize homosexuality as this could lead to bestiality and incest becoming legalized.

Fearing for his life, Seidu fled from Brazil and made his way to the United States. He travelled through nine countries by plane, bus, boat and foot. He told us, when he appeared here in July last year, that he had seen people who had died attempting to make the same trip he had. When he arrived in the United States, he followed the rules and he made an asylum claim. He was put in maximum security detention. He told us how he spent nine months locked up with murderers, drug dealers and other felons. He did not have access to an attorney for his bail hearing. Aware of the policies that then president-elect Trump was championing, and based on his experience to that point with the United States asylum system, once finally released, Seidu felt he had no choice but to make his way to Canada.

The safe third country agreement prevented him from being able to arrive at an authorized border crossing. The safe third country agreement denied him the dignity and respect he deserved to be able to present himself at the border and say, “I need protection.”

Instead, he made his way north and paid a cab driver $400 to get him and Razak as close to the border as the driver could. In the dead of night, with a wind chill of -30°C, they walked through waist-deep snow across farmers' fields, trying to find Canada.

Were it not for a good Samaritan named Franco, both men would have died that night. Instead, they suffered only from severe frostbite. Seidu had to have all his fingers amputated.

It was clear to me during the emergency debate that the only real option in the face of the Trump presidency—which vowed to institute a Mexican travel ban, to build a wall to stop asylum seekers from entering and to dramatically reduce any refugee resettlement, which gave a safe space for white nationalism to grow —was for Canada to suspend the safe third country agreement. Instead, the Liberal government opted to do nothing. There was nothing to see here, no need to take any action. In fact, at the end of January, the Prime Minister vowed, now famously tweeted:

To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada

I was proud of that tweet. I thought it was another thing that the Prime Minister so famously espouses: #RealChange. I thought, “Good on him for standing up.”

I thought that meant that asylum seekers would be treated with dignity and allowed to arrive at our borders to make their claims, and that we would stand up and speak out against the unacceptable policies being enacted in the United States. However, like so much of this government's talk, it was just that: talk.

There would be no action, and there would be no change—just a tweet—so I continued to raise the issue both in the committee and in the House. This government ignored me and the experts, to its own detriment, as it continued to refuse to show leadership.

The government members of this committee continually and in public voted to suspend debate on my motions to study the impact that these asylum claims would have at the IRB. They lacked the courage to examine the issue out of fear that it would make their government look bad and might force the government to take action. However, they also lacked the courage to stand behind their inaction, so they didn't vote the motion down, but hid it, voting instead to adjourn debate time and again.

It wasn't until August that the government even began acknowledging that there was something happening, that there was a significant increase in irregular crossings into Quebec at Roxham Road, primarily by Haitian nationals who were living in the United States, were in fear that the Trump administration was ending temporary protected status for them and were coming to Canada to claim asylum.

The Liberal solution? Just have the military throw up a tent city to temporarily shelter them. Move some of them to Toronto and Cornwall. Stay the course of doing nothing to address the border situation.

Then, in the fall of 2017, the Liberals decided that the best course of action to deter irregular border crossings wasn't to eliminate the incentive to do that, that is, to suspend the safe third country agreement so that asylum claimants could arrive at an authorized border crossing to make a claim. Instead, it made more sense to send government MPs to the United States to speak with communities to try to convince them that it wasn't worth trying to come here.

They also sent the minister to Nigeria to attempt to dissuade Nigerians from entering Canada to transit through the U.S. on visitor visas.

What Liberal government approach is complete without a task force or a period of consultation? Certainly not this one.

Also in the fall of 2017, the government announced that the ad hoc intergovernmental task force on irregular migration would finish with 20,593 asylum claims made by individuals crossing irregularly into Canada out of the total of 50,390 inland asylum claims—about 41% of all claims. The numbers would fluctuate, but the trend of increased asylum claimants crossing irregularly would continue.

The lack of political will to lead on this issue and take the necessary steps to actually back up—

Bill C-97—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 10 by the hon. member for Vancouver East concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

I would like to thank the member for Vancouver East for raising this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

The member for Vancouver East asked that the Chair use the authority granted under Standing Order 69.1 to divide the question on the motions for second and, if necessary, third reading of Bill C-97, as she argued the bill contained measures not announced in the budget of March 19, 2019.

She argued that the measures in subdivisions B, D, E, F, G, J, K and L of division 9 of part 4 amending a number of different acts did not appear to have been announced in the budget. The member also argued that divisions 15 and 16 of part 4, creating the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act and amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, should be separated out of Bill C-97, as these two measures would significantly transform the Canadian immigration system.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, in his intervention, sought to reassure the House that these measures were indeed arising out of the budget. He pointed out that many of the amendments arise out of a commitment made at page 326 of budget 2019 where it is written, and I quote:

The Government proposes to introduce legislation to begin its work on an annual modernization bill consisting of legislative amendments to various statutes to help eliminate outdated federal regulations and better keep existing regulations up to date.

He also mentioned that subdivision D in division 9 of part 4 was explicitly referenced at page 119, which states:

To facilitate internal trade, the Government intends to remove the federal requirement that alcohol moving from one province to another be sold or consigned to a provincial liquor authority. Provinces and territories would continue to be able to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol within their boundaries.

Finally, the parliamentary secretary stated that divisions 15 and 16 of part 4, which relate to the creation of the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act and make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, were dealt with at pages 184, 185 and 326 of the budget.

Standing Order 69.1 empowers the Speaker to divide the question on the motion for second and third reading of a bill in circumstances where the bill contains a number of unrelated provisions. It could certainly be argued that this is precisely the case with Bill C-97. However, the matter before us today concerns section (2) of that standing order, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills. That section reads as follows:

69.1(2) The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The question for the Speaker then is whether the measures identified by the member for Vancouver East correspond to provisions announced in budget 2019.

Let me first deal with the measures in subdivisions B, E, F, G, K and L of division 9 of part 4 of Bill C-97. I am willing to accept the arguments from the parliamentary secretary that the amendments to the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the Precious Metals Marking Act, the Textile Labelling Act, the Weights and Measures Act, the Quarantine Act and the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act are all part of the effort to modernize existing regulatory powers and obligations. I believe it is appropriate that those measures be included in the general vote at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.

The measures in subdivision J of division 9 of part 4, contained in clauses 217 to 219 of Bill C-97, concern amendments to the Pest Control Products Act. They deal with changes to the special review process that a minister may initiate relating to the registration of pest control products. I understand from the parliamentary secretary's comments that these modifications also fall under the heading “Bringing Innovation to Regulations” at page 326. Pages 116 to 120 of the budget provide more detail on this initiative. While less explicitly linked to specific regulations, in my view, the amendments to the Pest Control Products Act in Bill C-97 are aimed at reducing the regulatory burden associated with re-evaluation and special review of a product. The act empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the registration process, as well as a number of subjects related to the registration process, including the evaluation of the health or environmental risks or the value of pest control products. As such, I am prepared to accept this argument and will allow it to be included in the general vote.

The measures in subdivision D of division 9 of part 4, contained in clauses 185 to 189 of Bill C-97, concern the amendments to the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act. As indicated in the summary of the bill, these amendments are to limit the application of the act to intoxicating liquors imported into Canada. It is mentioned at page 119 of the budget that the government intends to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of alcohol.

When reading clauses 185 to 189 of Bill C-97, I understand that the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act must be amended for it to apply only to the importation of alcohol into Canada and not to interprovincial trade. I therefore believe it is also appropriate that those measures be included in the general vote at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.

Divisions 15 and 16 of part 4 deal with the creation of the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act and make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These measures are contained in clauses 291 to 310 of the bill. Each of these initiatives are explained at pages 184, 185 and 326 of the budget, under the headings of “Enhancing the Integrity of Canada’s Borders and Asylum System” and “Protecting People from Unscrupulous Immigration Consultants”. The provisions identified by the member for Vancouver East concerning these topics were therefore clearly announced in the budget.

The member for Vancouver East argued that the creation of the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act and the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should have been introduced as separate pieces of legislation. I do not believe that the Standing Orders allow the Chair, in the context of a budget implementation bill, to determine whether the significance of the proposed measures necessitates separate bills. If the measures are contained in the budget documents, the exemption of Standing Order 69.1(2) applies. As I mentioned in my ruling of November 1, 2018, which can be found at page 23380 of the Debates:

…I believe the purpose of the Standing Order is to allow such a division in relation to those matters which are unrelated to the budget, accepting that the purpose of the remainder of the bill is to implement the budget.

As all of the measures contained in the bill appear to arise out of commitments made in budget 2019, I believe the criteria referenced in Standing Order 69.1(2) have been met and the question will not be divided. Accordingly, there will only be one vote at second reading for this bill.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statements, government orders will be extended by 22 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) we'll be dealing with the subject matter of Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures. We will deal with it part by part, and then turn to part 4, various divisions.

We have a number of officials here.

Before we do that, under Standing Order 106(2), due to losing one vice-chair of the committee, we need to elect another.

Does somebody want to move that motion?

Mr. Fergus.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue the excellent commencement to this debate in this 20-minute segment by carrying on from the comments that were made by the member who just spoke.

I am rising in the chamber to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. This bill continues our government's commitment to put forward a progressive and positive agenda for all Canadians.

This budget has received praise from numerous sources. I have heard about it from the engaged and informed constituents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park, some of whom are here observing the proceedings today. Welcome, Mr. Van Dam.

This legislation will fund important initiatives in relationship to the environment, in relationship to anti-racism, in relationship to support for places of worship, indigenous languages, students, the LGBTQ2 community, infrastructure, health initiatives, social finance and so much more.

During my remarks today I will detail the highlights of this budget that relate to Bill C-97, which will improve the lives of my constituents in Parkdale—Hyde Park as well as Canadians right across the country.

First, it is important to thank the many stakeholders and individual Canadians for their hard work in advocating for various causes and issues raised in the budget by presenting their submissions to the Minister of Finance and the finance committee.

I want to begin my substantive remarks with one of the most important priorities for our country and for the world at large, as was just touched upon in the previous statements. It is the issue of climate change and its impact on our environment.

I agree wholeheartedly with the question that was posed by the NDP heritage critic about this issue needing to be a pan-governmental issue and a nonpartisan issue. Unfortunately, to date it has not been.

As many Canadians know, our government has placed a price on pollution, and it came into full force on April 1 of this year. This is a historic tool that will ensure that pollution is no longer free, and it reflects what I hear from my constituents and people right around this country: that climate change is absolutely real and that we must take action now.

In budget 2019 and through this very bill, we are taking steps in our plan to protect the environment and at the same time grow a clean economy while making life more affordable for Canadians.

This budget implementation legislation would implement a few additional measures, such as our $1-billion plan for investments in energy efficiency, which includes our new home retrofit program to help Canadians lower their electricity and energy bills.

It also includes a new $5,000 subsidy for Canadians investing in zero-emission vehicles. Those are Canadians in my riding of Parkdale—High Park and Canadians in every riding of this country. The bill will also support zero-emission vehicle manufacturing right here in Canada.

This is how we are making meaningful progress on fighting climate change now.

Next is an issue that touches all of us in this country, including residents in Parkdale—High Park in Toronto: the cost of housing.

Everyone deserves an affordable place to call home, but far too often Canadians are being priced out of the housing market. This bill would implement housing investments from budget 2019 that we are making to address housing affordability.

An important initiative is the first-time homebuyers incentive, which will allow first-time homebuyers to reduce their monthly insured mortgage payments by way of a shared equity mortgage from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, which would not have to be paid off until the unit is eventually resold. The shared equity mortgage could be up to 10% for a new build or up to 5% for a repurchase.

We are also allowing Canadians to withdraw, without penalty, an additional $10,000 from their RRSPs for the purpose of buying a home.

As well, we are increasing the funds for the rental construction financing initiative, which will help to build thousands of new, well-priced units right around country. That is important, because we have heard constantly that in order to address housing, we have to address the supply.

Bill C-97 would also implement our plan to modernize the Canada homebuyers' plan. This plan is intended to assist Canadians with their down payment and, by extension, the costs of purchasing a home. With this legislation, we are increasing the homebuyers' plan withdrawal limit from $25,000 to $35,000, which will make it more flexible to adapt to changing familial circumstances. That is in reference to the RRSP notion that I raised earlier.

This is on top of our overall $40-billion national housing strategy that now exceeds $50 billion when we combine previous budgetary allocations with the allocations currently being made. This national housing strategy has already been a tremendous success right around the country.

How does it affect my riding? I will explain how. It will affect my riding in two concrete ways.

First, we have five federally subsidized co-ops in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. Every single one of the tenants who has a rent-geared-to-income subsidy provided by the federal government will have that subsidy renewed by virtue of this budget and by virtue of our policies on housing.

Second, we have made a historic announcement of $1.3 billion for the national housing strategy that will come directly to Toronto to help those who are in social housing. It will come to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation. This is the single largest investment in Canadian history that is dedicated directly to municipalities, and 58,000 units will be affected. It will help to renovate, maintain and repair the housing stock, ensuring that the housing stock remains on the market so that people are appropriately housed. That is what a housing strategy does. That is what I am proud to defend here as a government member.

Our infrastructure investments do not stop there. Once again, we are stepping up while governments like the provincial government of Doug Ford are stepping out. In particular, we are investing $2.2 billion into the federal gas tax fund. That gas tax transfer is being doubled this year through this budget so that municipalities can commence much-needed infrastructure repair. This is how we will ensure that infrastructure funding gets exactly where it needs to go, and more importantly, it will go to those who have the ability to actually get the projects done, meaning local and municipal governments and grassroots community organizations.

Why are we taking this step? It is because it was asked for by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Those municipalities have expressed their absolute frustration with governments like the one in Ontario led by Premier Ford, which has stubbornly refused to get moving on much-needed infrastructure repairs purely because of partisan considerations. What we are doing is going directly to those municipalities to address their needs.

This budget implementation bill would also implement Canada's first ever poverty reduction strategy by entrenching an official poverty line and the national advisory council on poverty into law. This is in addition to the incredible news this year that the poverty initiatives implemented by our government are indeed working. Statistics released earlier this year show that 825,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty and that we are three years ahead of the targets we set as a government. Thanks to federal initiatives, poverty has fallen 20% since 2015. A hallmark of that initiative is the Canada child benefit and its targeted, means-tested approach.

We are continuing with the other important commitments we have made. We are entrenching pay transparency with this bill. As we well know, currently women in Canada earn approximately 87¢ on the dollar compared to men. This is absolutely unacceptable. Last year's budget introduced pay equity measures, and in order to reduce the wage gap, this year's budget will introduce new pay transparency measures in Canada for federally regulated employers. With this legislation, we will require employers to include new salary data in their annual reports to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour in order to ensure total pay transparency. This is important because it will have an impact on Canadians.

I want to pick up on a question that was asked to the previous member, who spoke about indigenous reconciliation and how it is vested in this budget. It is vested in two critically important ways.

The first is in providing supports of over $300 million for indigenous language maintenance, protection and revitalization. I was very proud to have worked on the development of Bill C-91, which would revitalize, protect and promote indigenous languages during my time as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We are now coupling that statutory instrument with the financial resources to make it a reality. This is something that has been lauded by indigenous leaders, and rightly so, because it puts money to the commitments we have made to reconcile with indigenous peoples through promoting their language faculties.

Second, it needs to be stated over and over again that the situation of boil water advisories on reserves is deplorable, but we are making active changes to that situation. Thus far, we have lifted 81 boil water advisories around Canada. We are on track to lift all of them by March 2021. To demonstrate our commitment to this goal, we have dedicated an additional $733 million in this year's budget to that very important goal to ensure that no person in Canada, particularly no indigenous person, has to boil their water in order to drink safe water.

Those are the kinds of commitments that people have talked about to me in my riding. Those are the kinds of commitments toward housing, to reconciliation, to poverty elimination, to women, to addressing economic circumstances and job creation that people prioritize. This is a budget that I am proud to stand behind, and I urge every member of this chamber to do exactly the same.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually sad to rise today on Bill C-97, because this is really a symbol of what the last four years have been like under the Liberal government.

The subtitle of this budget implementation bill is the budget of broken promises, and that is very apt. For four years, we have seen Liberals break promise after promise, commitment after commitment. I remember back in 2015 when the Prime Minister and the Liberals were campaigning. They promised a vast number of things.

The Liberals promised they would actually take care of the middle class. They promised they would bring new dignity to Parliament, that they would stop the systematic bulldozing of legislation through Parliament and that they would listen to opposition members of Parliament. Among many other broken promises, and we could reference pharmacare and democratic reform, they also promised never to bring in omnibus legislation.

The parliamentary secretary talks about ominous legislation, and he is quite right. Omnibus legislation does a profound disservice to the country and it does a profound disservice to Canadians. We only have to look at last year's omnibus bill, which the Liberals rammed through provisions designed to undermine what should be a principle of Canadian law, that if people broke the law, whether it was bribery or any other criminal act, they would be subject to consequences. However, what the Liberals slipped into the omnibus legislation, which they promptly bulldozed through Parliament, were provisions that would allow for companies like SNC-Lavalin to get off scot-free if there was not an attorney general willing to stand up to the Prime Minister and his people.

We have seen this whole sad SNC-Lavalin scandal play out as a result of that Liberal attempt to usurp parliamentary oversight. We raised questions about those provisions, but because the Liberals, with their majority government, bulldozed the budget implementation bill through last year, Canadians were not given the opportunity to really voice their displeasure about setting up what was a dual system in law. Rich corporations can break the law and do not have to worry, because the Prime Minister will let them off the hook.

What happens in this budget implementation bill? First, of course, the promise about not bringing in omnibus legislation is broken yet again. It is something the Liberals have broken four years in a row now. It is 364 pages. In the provisions of this budget implementation bill, we see the poison pills, legislation no Canadian would support the passage of if it were to stand on its own.

I will reference what my colleague from Vancouver East raised yesterday in a point of order about the provisions to undermine the ability of people fleeing persecution and extreme violence to apply for refugee status in Canada. What the Liberals have done, and extreme white nationalists are now complimenting the Liberals on the provisions that are deeply hidden in the budget implementation bill, is basically take away the right of refugees to cross the border because of what has happened under the Trump administration in the United States, that persecution of minorities we are seeing. The sad persecution undertaken by Mr. Trump and his allies in Washington is something Canadians reject, however, the Liberals have adopted and embraced it.

Instead of eliminating the safe third country agreement that allow refugees to apply when they are being forced out of the United States or forced back to situations of extreme peril, the Liberals have basically closed off the ability of those refugees to come to the border and apply for refugee status.

I think all of us, as human beings, understand what these refugees are escaping: profound violence and war, systematic sexual violence, a whole range of indignities and appalling situations that, fortunately, some people are able to escape.

They come to North America. They also come to the United States, which used to be a beacon of freedom. In fact, years ago, my grandfather arrived at Ellis Island, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, to apply to enter the United States. He stayed in the United States and worked for a number of years, and then went back to Europe to get his family and came to Canada.

The United States used to be a beacon of welcome and freedom, typified by the Statue of Liberty. However, under the Trump administration, those doors have now been shut down and closed to those escaping persecution and violence.

Canada could have been that beacon of freedom by simply removing the safe third country agreement. Instead, by hiding items in the provisions of the budget implementation act, the Liberals have taken the kind of action that finds approval only from white nationalists, those with hatred in their hearts. This is appalling, and it is just one of the symptoms of how far the Liberal government has fallen.

The reality is that for the vast majority of Canadians, it has been four very difficult years. They were hoping that after the years of Harper cutbacks and massive handouts to the business sector and large, profitable corporations, the Liberals would keep their commitments and respond to people's needs. However, the budget implementation act is, again, a symbol of how far they have fallen from that goal, which Canadians elected them to achieve.

What have we seen over the last few years? It has been massive corporate handouts, symbolized by the $12 million given to Loblaws, one of Canada's richest corporations. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie just asked about this, with no response from the Liberals, as usual. However, that $12 million pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars that this Liberal government has shovelled out the door and given to some of the most profitable and wealthy corporations in the country.

One example is Kinder Morgan. Not only did the Liberals buy its pipeline, but they gave out a bonus of billions of dollars, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They bought a piece of infrastructure and gave a bonus to Kinder Morgan executives. This is billions of dollars that could have gone to housing, pharmacare or helping the appalling situations in indigenous communities.

The Liberals did not bat an eye as billions of dollars went out the door. About $14 billion was given out last fall in the fall economic update as a gift to corporate executives on Bay Street. The Liberals pushed $14 billion out the door with no thought about whether doing so was in the public interest.

This does not even touch for a moment the intricate system of tax havens and tax loopholes that Liberals and Conservatives have put in place over the years. Canadians are left with an estimated $20 billion to $30 billion going offshore each year.

What is the result? For the corporate sector, it means the lowest effective tax rate in the industrialized world, at 9%. This is the estimated tax rate paid by Canada's wealthiest and most profitable corporations. This is far below any other industrialized country, because we have a porous and profoundly unjust tax system.

For corporate executives, it is the best of times. They are partying big, because they know that all of our resources are coming their way.

The missed opportunity in this budget implementation act and in the budget itself was to take any meaningful action that would actually make a difference in people's lives.

I have raised the names of two individuals a number of times in the House. I have done so because they are symptomatic of so many Canadians living in the same situation. I have often spoken about Jim, who is just off Parliament Hill on the bridge between the Château Laurier and Parliament Hill. Every day Liberal ministers, Liberal MPs and the Prime Minister's limousine go right by Jim. He sits begging in his wheelchair, trying to get enough money to survive for another month by buying the medication his doctor has prescribed to him. He needs it to stay alive. He needs it to be with his children and grandchildren. Because he is on a limited fixed income that barely pays for rent and food, he is obliged to beg for the $580 a month that keeps him in medication and keeps him alive.

What a shameful symbol. It is unbelievable that for four years Liberals have walked past him with hardly a thought about Jim as they walk past him and his sign asking people to please contribute.

Maybe some of them give a few dollars—I do not know, but what I do know is that if Liberals had come in 2015 with the intent to carry out their commitments, Jim would have pharmacare now. His medication would be paid for now. He would not need to beg to get the money to get through the month.

If Liberals had kept their promises, someone like Jim would no longer have to worry about that. He would be able to contribute as he wants to, spend his time volunteering in the community and spend time with his family. His family is low-income too, so he has said very clearly that he has to do this because he does not want to burden his family. What a tragic choice to make for the entire family, and it was imposed on Jim by the Liberal government and the Prime Minister.

I talked in the House before about Heather, who is struggling to find affordable housing and is worried about losing her apartment any month now. As rents skyrocket in the Lower Mainland in the New Westminster—Burnaby area, she shares a one-bedroom apartment with her mother and with her daughter, and they are struggling to get by. She is struggling to keep a roof over her head. She is like so many others in the Lower Mainland, in greater Toronto and right across this country.

In any indigenous community we see the absolutely deplorable state of housing. If Liberals four years ago had come with the intent of actually keeping their promises, they would have done something that the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus have been proposing, which is to build affordable housing. Do as we did after the Second World War, when we had governments at that time that actually listened to the public.

When hundreds of thousands of men and women in the service were coming back to Canada, the federal government built not one, or 10, or 100, or 1,000, or 10,000 units. Over three years, it built 300,000 affordable homes for those returning men and women in the service, because Canadians knew and still know that there is an important responsibility that comes with power. At that time after the Second World War, that government got it right.

One of those homes is the one my wife and I live in on Glover Avenue in New Westminster, and it is still a very good home today. If Liberals had wanted to keep the commitments that they made in 2015, they would have built hundreds of thousands of units, just as we did after the Second World War, and people like Heather would be safe in affordable housing. They would not be worried about whether they would still have their apartment in a month or two months or three months. If the government had done the right thing, housing would be provided now to every Canadian, and every Canadian would have a roof over their head and would feel safe in their housing.

However, the Liberals did not do any of that. They made a commitment in the budget act to do something eventually if they are re-elected. It is the same with pharmacare. They will fill in some of the holes after they are re-elected. They have a callous disregard for what Canadians are living through.

We have seen the figures. They show that things are getting worse, not better, yet Liberals stand in the House and say everything is great. Excuse me, but when statistics come out, as they did a few weeks ago, showing that 46% of Canadians are $200 away in any given month from not being able to pay their expenses, we have to think about that for a moment. It is half the Canadian population.

It may be $200 for a car repair, or perhaps something they have to contribute at school. It may be a health problem. Goodness knows, they do not have access to pharmacare, and if they have to pay for medication, a $200 margin is all they have before they go even more deeply in debt. Canada now has, after 20 or 30 years of Conservative and Liberal governments, the worst record in the industrialized world for the level of family debt.

All of this splurging on Bay Street, these massive tax handouts that are given left, right and centre, have left a decimated middle class. It is not only the worst family debt crisis in our nation's history; it is the worst family debt crisis in any industrialized nation's history. Canadians are struggling under massive levels of family debt. They are trying to pay for their homes and having to borrow to stay in their homes. They are trying to pay for school or for their children to go to university or college and they are struggling and going further into debt. They are going into debt to pay for their medication. They are going into debt for a wide variety of basic needs that are no longer met by our federal government in any way, shape or form.

What we have with this budget implementation act is a powerful symbol of four years of inaction by the current Liberal government, four years of betrayal and four years of broken promises. I think that on October 21, Canadians will judge the Liberals on those broken promises.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak at length in this place for some time, and I am happy to have the opportunity to rise today on Bill C-97 to speak to some of the initiatives in our government's budget that are going to make a difference for my constituents in Scarborough Centre.

This is our government's fourth budget, and it is the continuation of the plan Canadians voted for in 2015, a plan that is working.

Back in 2015, Canadians had a choice between Conservative and NDP plans for austerity and cuts and a Liberal plan for investing in growing the middle class and those working hard to join it. Canadians chose to invest in our future, and their decision is paying off. Today Canada's economy is one of the fastest growing in the G7. Since 2015, Canadians have created more than 900,000 new jobs. Thanks to the middle-class tax cut and the tax-free Canada child benefit, Canadian families have more money in their pockets to help make ends meet.

However, we recognize that our work is not yet done. We need to ensure that all Canadians share in the growing prosperity. That means being able to find an affordable place to live, getting the skills to find a well-paying job and being able to retire with confidence. That is why it is important that we do not allow the clock to be turned back to the Harper era and that we keep investing in Canadians and in our future.

Before I get to some of those investments, allow me to touch on another area of focus in budget 2019: keeping Canadians safe from violence and hate. Canadians of all backgrounds and identities should always feel safe together. Unfortunately, as recent tragic events have demonstrated, certain groups of people, because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, are at risk of being targeted by hate-motivated crimes, threatening their safety and security and the gathering places they enjoy.

To help community gathering spaces, such as schools, community centres and places of worship, make needed security improvements, we would double the annual funding for the security infrastructure program, from $2 million per year to $4 million per year. Several faith organizations in Scarborough Centre have already leveraged this program to upgrade their security infrastructure, and I encourage all eligible institutions to take advantage of this program.

We all know that diversity is one of Canada's strengths, but sadly, we know that Canada is not immune to the effects of hateful rhetoric. That is why budget 2019 would invest $45 million to support a new anti-racism strategy. It would work to find ways to counter racism in its various forms, with a strong focus on community-based projects.

While we cannot be blind to the threats, I know that most of my fellow Canadians are warm and welcoming people who reject fear, racism and division. What unites us all is our shared desire to provide opportunities for families, and this budget would make a number of important investments in that regard.

Perhaps the biggest issue I hear about at the door in Scarborough is housing. Buying a home is increasingly out of reach for the average family, and rental housing is often outdated, overpriced and inadequate for the needs of many families.

Everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to live, but in the greater Toronto area, too many are being priced out of the market. The Harper government did nothing to address housing affordability for 10 years. The Conservatives were missing in action, leaving the provinces, the municipalities and community organizations to try to pick up the slack. However, with our 10-year, $40-billion national housing strategy, the federal government is finally back at the table when it comes to housing.

I had the opportunity to join the Prime Minister and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development in Scarborough, where our government committed $1.3 billion to help repair and renovate more than 58,000 Toronto community housing units. This will allow for long-delayed repairs to be completed and will improve the quality of life for thousands of Toronto families. We would build on these investments in budget 2019.

The new first-time homebuyer incentive will make home ownership more affordable for first-time homebuyers and allow them to lower their monthly mortgages. On a newly built $400,000 home, this new incentive could save an eligible homebuyer up to $40,000, or 10%, of the total cost. We expect as many as 100,000 Canadians could benefit from this program over the next three years, putting the dream of home ownership back within reach.

I have spoken with independent experts in the real estate industry who tell me this program will mean more families will be able to enter the housing market, especially younger families just starting out, families like Sameer Ahmed in my riding, whose wife and three children are crammed today in a two-bedroom apartment. They can now dream of a home in which their family has the room to grow and thrive. The more flexible homebuyer plan will let Canadians borrow an additional $10,000 from their RRSPs, raising the limit to $35,000, providing more flexibility for Canadians.

For Canadians looking to rent rather than buy, increased funding for rental construction finance initiatives means 42,500 new rental units across Canada. It is so important that we build capacity in the rental housing market where supply far outstrips demand and much of the existing supply is increasingly old and out of date.

I am also excited about the Canada training benefit. It is an initiative very similar to one brought as a policy to last spring's Liberal policy convention developed by a group of youth in my riding. It addressed a challenge identified by many of their peers, the challenge of lifelong learning and re-skilling for an ever-changing economy throughout our lives.

To ensure Canadians have the skills they need to get the well-paying jobs of the new economy, we are introducing the Canada training benefit. Canadians earning less than $150,000 can accumulate up to $5,000 tax-free over their lives, at a rate of $250 per year, to help with the cost of enrolling in a training program. Every four years, they can take up to four weeks of training to upgrade their skills and progress in their careers. With the EI training support benefit, they will get help with living expenses while on training leave. New leave provisions will ensure their jobs are safe.

While Canadians will need to supplement these resources with their own, this program will make it much easier for Canadian workers to invest in their careers and in themselves.

Speaking of young Canadians, we are helping our youth get ahead by lowering interest rates for student loans, saving the average borrower $2,000. We are also making the six-month grace period after graduation interest-free. If students temporarily leave their studies to have a child or deal with health issues, that period is now interest-free, too. We are helping students gain real-world experience by creating up to 40,000 annual new work placements and another 44,000 work-integrated work opportunities for Canadian students.

While the Conservatives were only focused on pushing back the age of retirement, we are committed to supporting seniors. With this budget, we are making their lives more affordable. We are ensuring that working seniors can keep more of their hard-earned income by enhancing the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption. We are increasing the earnings exemption from $3,500 to $5,000, extending the exemption to include self-employment income, and introducing a 50% exemption in income between $5,000 and $15,000.

To fight social isolation and help seniors stay active and engaged in the community, we are increasing funding for the new horizons for seniors program. This program funds community-based projects designed to meet the needs of local seniors. I have seen first-hand in Scarborough the benefits this program brings to local seniors. For example, the Sesheme Foundation is using a new horizons grant to familiarize seniors with technology and help arm them with valuable financial literacy skills.

As I said earlier, our plan is working. I know this because, since 2015, 825,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty and Canada's poverty rate has dropped by more than 20%.

As I also said earlier, there is still more work to do. That is why we have launched Canada's first-ever poverty reduction strategy. Under this strategy, we are setting poverty reduction targets and entrenching Canada's official poverty line and the National Advisory Council on Poverty into law.

I could go on and on about the positive elements in this budget implementation act. Instead, let me just say that I am proud to be part of a government that is investing in Canadians. Truly, there can be no better bet than to bet on Canada.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to budget 2019, Bill C-97.

For the past four years, our government has invested in Canadians and in what matters to them the most. Budget 2019 continues that plan by investing in something that matters to all Canadians: their health. We all know the sinking feeling that comes when you hear a loved one is sick or badly hurt. The clock seems to stop and it is hard to think about anything else, especially about how much money there is saved in the bank. However, the sad reality is that too many Canadians have to think about finances in moments of such dread.

We are proud of our publicly funded universal health care system, connecting Canadians with the best health care system and connecting Canadians with the best doctors, nurses and health care providers based on their needs. However, when it comes to prescription drugs, not everyone has access to what they need to regain and maintain their health.

Many middle-class Canadians, and those struggling hard to join the middle class, cannot afford the prescription drugs they need. No one should have to choose between putting food on the table and buying prescription drugs. Therefore, our system can and must be improved, because when prescription drugs are unaffordable, it leads to poorer health for many Canadians and higher health care costs for all of us.

It is true that most Canadians have some form of public or private drug coverage. However, the nature of that coverage varies significantly from person to person across the country. Therefore, to improve the accessibility and affordability of prescription medications, the government announced, in budget 2018, the creation of an advisory council. This council is providing advice on how to implement the national pharmacare plan in a manner that is affordable for Canadians, employers and governments. With budget 2019, we are laying the foundation for the implementation of a national pharmacare program while we await the final report by our advisory council on its full implementation.

Based on the consultation and interim report of the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, our government intends to work with provinces, territories, the private sector and other partners on three foundational elements: first, create the Canadian drug agency that will assess drug effectiveness and negotiate prices; second, establish an evidence-based list of prescribed drugs, a list of drugs Canadians can access, to be developed as part of the agency; and third, establish a national strategy for high-cost drugs for rare diseases.

I will speak about these three items, specific measures and, should I have some time remaining, I would like to take a quick aside to discuss budget 2019's strong emphasis on issues facing seniors in communities like mine.

I will start with the first foundational element: assessing drug effectiveness and negotiating prices.

The new Canadian drug agency, through its ability to negotiate prices, will lead to lower prices for prescription drugs. That is very good news, because right now, Canada faces some of the highest drug costs in the world. Costs have risen dramatically over the last three decades. Prescription drug spending in Canada was about $2.5 billion in 1985. In 2018, it was nearly $34 billion and the costs keep rising.

Canada's current patchwork of drug coverage is not well equipped to handle the increasingly expensive drugs coming into the market. There are over 100 public prescription drug insurance companies in Canada and over 100,000 private insurance plans.

The Canadian drug agency would help make things better by negotiating drug prices on behalf of Canada's drug plans. The agency would also assess the effectiveness of new prescription drugs and recommend which drugs represented the best value for money for Canadians. For the first time in Canada, drug evaluation and price negotiation could be carried out by one single entity. This was one of the initial recommendations included in the interim report of the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare.

The Canadian drug agency would be established in partnership with provinces, territories and all other stakeholders. It would build on existing provincial successes by acting as a single evaluator and negotiator on behalf of Canada's drug plans.

The proposed agency could help to considerably reduce drug spending. The Canadian drug agency could, in the long term, lead to billions of dollars in savings on prescription drug costs each year. In short, the Canadian drug agency could be a powerful tool for addressing the rising cost of prescription drugs across Canada.

The second foundational element is establishing a new national formulary for prescribed drugs. While the Canadian drug agency's key responsibility would be the development of a national formulary, the agency would work in partnership with provinces, territories and other stakeholders to develop a comprehensive, evidence-based list of prescribed drugs. This would provide the basis for a consistent approach to formulary listings and patient access across the country. Therefore, budget 2019 proposes to provide Health Canada with $35 million over four years to establish a transition office to support the development of this vision.

The third foundational element is making high-cost drugs for rare diseases more accessible. I would like to discuss what budget 2019 would mean for Canadians who require high-cost prescription drugs to treat their diseases. For these Canadians, the cost of the medication they need can be astronomical.

It is worth noting that rare diseases predominantly affect children. These diseases are often genetically based and appear in early childhood. More than 7,000 rare diseases have been identified to date. However each one of them affects a relatively small number of patients, which makes decisions on drug approval and coverage very difficult. The list price of some of these drugs often exceeds $100,000 per patient per year. In some cases, it is even more. This obviously creates significant distress for these patients and their families.

These costs also represent significant challenges for the government and private drug plans when it comes to making decisions on whether and how to pay for the treatment. This can lead to challenges for many provinces and territories looking to help families. This is why we need a national approach to drugs for rare diseases.

Canada's national strategy will be created in partnership, again, with the provinces and territories. It will allow for a coordinated approach for gathering and evaluating evidence, improve consistency in decision-making and access across the country, and ensure that effective treatments reach the patients who need them the most.

Budget 2019 proposes up to $1 billion over two years, starting in 2022, with up to $500 million per year ongoing, to help Canadians with rare diseases.

I know I have less than one minute left, so I would like to speak briefly about seniors and how those in my riding will be impacted.

Our government is increasing the GIS exemption from $3,500 to $5,000 per year to give more of our fixed-income seniors the choice to continue to work without being penalized. We will begin proactive CPP enrolment at age 70 to ensure that no seniors miss out on benefits they are entitled to.

We are increasing transparency and will launch an initiative to change corporate laws to increase oversight and grant the courts a greater ability to review payments made to executives in the lead-up to insolvency, protecting workplace pensions from predatory practices.

In conclusion, like many of my colleagues, I look forward to reading the final report of the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, which is due later this spring.

Moving forward, national pharmacare will help lead to protecting the health of every Canadian.

The House resumed from April 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-97—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East on April 10, 2019, with respect to the status of Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, 2019, no. 1.

In her statement, my hon. colleague argued that since multiple items were included in Bill C-97, then the bill should be treated as an omnibus bill. Her view was that these measures were unrelated to the budget. In her argument, the hon. opposition member argued that subdivisions B, D, E, F, G, J, K and L of division 9 of part 4, amended different acts; that division 15 of part 4, clauses 292 to 302, created a new act; that division 16 of part 4, clauses 302 to 311, made changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and that Bill C-97 was an omnibus bill and as such should be divided for further consideration.

I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the case. As you know and as the opposition member pointed out in her point of order, Standing Order 69.1(2) states clearly that Standing Order 69.1(1) “shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.”

Consequently, I would like to point out that subdivisions B, E, F, G, J, K and L of division 9 of part 4 of Bill C-97, which amend different regulatory acts, are all alluded to at page 326 of budget 2019. Next to the subject of “Bringing Innovation to Regulations”, it states:

The Government proposes to introduce legislation to begin its work on an annual modernization bill consisting of legislative amendments to various statutes to help eliminate outdated federal regulations and better keep existing regulations up to date.

The amendments quoted by the honourable member are all part of that effort to modernize existing regulations. As for subdivision D of the aforementioned division, it is even more explicitly referenced at page 119. Next to the subject of “Removing federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of alcohol”, it states:

To facilitate internal trade, the Government intends to remove the federal requirement that alcohol moving from one province to another be sold or consigned to a provincial liquor authority. Provinces and territories would continue to be able to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol within their boundaries.

Furthermore, division 15 of part 4, clauses 292 to 302 of the BIA, which relates to the creation of the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act, is referred to at pages 184 and 185 of the budget. Under the heading of “Protecting People from Unscrupulous Immigration Consultants”, it states:

To help protect newcomers and applicants wishing to obtain the services of legitimate service providers, Budget 2019 proposes to provide $51.9 million over five years, starting in 2019–20, and $10.1 million per year ongoing. Funding will improve oversight of immigration consultants and strengthen compliance and enforcement measures. It will also support public awareness activities that will help vulnerable newcomers and applicants protect themselves against fraudulent immigration consultants. These measures will help to ensure that all applicants have access to quality immigration and citizenship advice, and that those who are providing the services operate in a professional and ethical manner, with disciplinary powers in place should fraud or misrepresentation occur.

In addition, the Government proposes to introduce legislation and propose amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Citizenship Act in order to implement these measures.

This is echoed at page 326, next to the subject “Protecting People from Unscrupulous Immigration Consultants”, where it clearly states:

The Government proposes to introduce legislation and propose amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Citizenship Act in order to implement measures to help protect newcomers and applicants wishing to obtain the services of legitimate service providers.

Finally, part 4, division 16, clauses 302 to 311, which make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, are consequent with what is found once again on page 184, under the heading “Enhancing the Integrity of Canada's Borders and Asylum System”. It states:

...Budget 2019 proposes to introduce legislative amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to better manage, discourage and prevent irregular migration.

Once again, this is echoed at page 326 of the budget, next to the subject “Enhancing the Integrity of Canada's Borders and Asylum System”, which states:

The Government proposes to introduce legislative amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to better manage, discourage and prevent irregular migration.

As such, I believe the measures contained in Bill C-97 were all included in the budget. Consequently, I respectfully submit that Bill C-97 is not an omnibus bill and, as such, should not be split.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will face a choice in a few months. One of the choices they will face is to continue to grow the economy with smart investments and smart policies, such as the accelerated capital cost allowance that was put in place in the fall economic statement; the adoption of measures to enhance skills training in Bill C-97; and increasing the earnings exemption for seniors to $5,000 and then by 50% from $5,000 to $15,000. That is a $1.76-billion investment in our seniors so they can stay in the workforce a little longer and keep their hard-earned money. Those are smart, targeted investments.

Between now and October 21, the choice will be clear: continue to grow the economy, or go backward to the last 10 years, when we saw very low growth rates, the lowest since the Great Depression, and not lifting Canadians out of poverty. We have lifted 825,000 of them out of poverty, and Canadians have created over 900,000 jobs, with the lowest unemployment rate in over 40 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great today to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, which introduces many of the measures we have brought forward un budget 2019. This goes to our central value of continuing to strengthen the middle class and help those working hard to join it in our great and beautiful country, Canada.

I am proud to be the member of Parliament for Vaughan—Woodbridge, a riding that is very entrepreneurial and a riding in which I have the benefit of raising my two daughters. It is also a riding that when I knock on people's doors, I hear plenty of feedback. My residents are doing well. They are working hard. They are creating a better future for them and their families, which is great to see. We are all here in the House to ensure that Canadians and their families have a better future. That has been a central tenet of our government.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak about the government's next step in its plan to invest in the middle class and grow the economy.

Recently, our government tabled Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, which announced a number of new initiatives, including measures to make it more affordable for Canadians to rent or buy a home.

I mentioned the word affordable. I hear this a lot, and it is something our government is acting on, and has acted on. Today, the OECD announced that Canadians faced one of the lowest tax burdens among all of the OECD members. That is due to our middle-class tax cut, the Canada child benefit, the 10% increase in the guaranteed income supplement and a number of measures that we have adopted which help Canadians and Canadian families.

Canadians now face one of the lowest tax bases among all OECD countries. We should be proud of that. We need to applaud that and move forward on it. This includes lifting 820,000 Canadians out of poverty and lifting 300,000 children out of poverty. We should be proud of that as well.

Something that is near and dear to the residents of York region and across Canada is housing affordability. Housing affordability and market stability are issues that concern many middle-class families and they are issues that this government takes seriously.

Everyone needs a safe and affordable place to call home, but today too many Canadians are being priced out of the housing market. For 10 years, Conservative politicians, like Stephen Harper and the hon. opposition leader, did nothing to address housing affordability, pushing home ownership further out of the reach of hard-working middle-class Canadians and putting household debt on the rise.

With budget 2019 and through Bill C-97, the BIA, our government is making smart significant investments to help Canadians find an affordable place to call home. One of our responsibilities as a government is to support a healthy, competitive and stable housing market, one in which all middle-class families and first-time home buyers specifically have the possibility to buy their first home without having to take on excessive risk.

This is why our government, to date, has taken a wide array of actions to improve housing affordability. To help more young families take their first steps toward home ownership, our government is announcing targeted support to first-time homebuyers across the country in this budget and implemented through Bill C-97.

Through Bill C-97, we are introducing a first-time homebuyer incentive, a new program that will make home ownership more affordable for first-time buyers by allowing them to lower their monthly mortgage payments. The first-time homebuyer incentive will give eligible first-time homebuyers the option to finance a portion of their home directly with Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation. The program would provide up to $1.25 billion in shared equity mortgages to eligible borrowers over the next three years. The program would mean more a more affordable down payment, as well as more manageable mortgage payments.

Also, we are proposing to provide first-time homebuyers with greater access to their registered retirement savings plan to buy a home. Budget 2019 proposes to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit to $35,000 from the current limit of $25,000. In a two-income family, that could mean up to $70,000 could be withdrawn from an RRSP to purchase a first home. This means more equity in a home, lower mortgage amounts and lower debt for Canadian families. I believe that is a smart investment and a smart policy tool that our government put in place.

This change will help first-time homebuyers achieve their dream of purchasing their very own home. When Canadians can take pride in the place that they hang their hats at the end of the day, they feel better about their community and their country.

In 2017, our government also launched the national housing strategy. It is the first of its kind in Canada, and it provides a range of new tools and programming to build, repair and renew Canada's stock of community and affordable housing. The strategy will create 100,000 new housing units and repair and renew 300,000 units. Simply put, Canada's national housing strategy is a $40-billion 10-year plan to help Canadians across the country access housing that meets their needs and that they can afford.

Most importantly, we need to ensure that Canadians have a safe, secure place and affordable place to call home so they can raise their families and have a brighter future for themselves and their children and grandchildren. As part of this strategy, our government also launched a $13.2-billion national housing co-investment fund that will assist vulnerable Canadians in accessing affordable housing. That includes survivors leaving violence, seniors, indigenous people, new immigrants and people with disabilities.

Through the national housing strategy, more Canadians will a have a safe and affordable place to call home, including in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, where currently we have under construction an affordable development in which 162 units will be offered to individuals who need assistance. That is what Canada is about: helping those who need assistance and ensuring that we all have opportunities to succeed.

I am happy to say that Canadians have created over 900,000 jobs over the last few years. We have set the conditions for foreign direct investment and for domestic investment, which is at elevated levels. We are recovering from the oil crisis three years ago, and we see investments across the country, particularly here in Ontario.

In my riding, manufacturing firms are continuing to expand and are continuing to hire. When I visit these firms and enterprises, the biggest issue they have is that they cannot find enough labour. There are currently 540,000 job postings unfilled, according to Statistics Canada. That reflects the robustness of our job market and also demographics. People are retiring, and we need to replace them through a robust and secure immigration system.

Through the national housing strategy, more Canadians will have a safe and affordable place to call home. In fact, these measures are expected to lift 530,000 Canadians out of housing need. It will lift 825,000 Canadians out of poverty, which I think we need to talk about, because that is how we create a better Canada for all Canadians. It will help reduce chronic homelessness by half over the next 10 years.

I am proud to say that budget 2019 would build on these actions, helping more middle-class Canadians realize their dream of owning a home. To start, budget 2019 proposes to further expand the rental construction financing initiative with an additional $10 billion in financing over the next nine years. I am happy to report that this program is oversubscribed by individuals and developers building new rental construction.

We have not seen a lot of new rental construction over the last few years. In Canada, the housing market is a continuum, and we need a greater supply of rental housing, and through this program, we are getting it. The program will help build thousands of new units across Canada, with a particular focus on areas of low rental supply.

In recognition of barriers to developing new housing, budget 2019 also proposes a $300-million housing supply challenge. Through this challenge, the government will invite municipalities and other groups to propose new ways to break down the barriers that limit the creation of new housing. Those ideas will be added to our consultations on how we can best increase the housing supply.

To that point, budget 2019 proposes support for the recently announced expert panel on the future of housing supply and affordability, launched in partnership with the Province of British Columbia. The panel will be tasked with examining factors that limit housing availability and will be recommending actions governments can take to build better, more affordable and more inclusive communities.

Finally, to ensure that future investments in the housing supply are put to their best use possible, budget 2019, through Bill C-97, proposes that CMHC invest $5 million over two years in state-of-the-art modelling of housing supply and related data collection. That is what our government is doing on the supply side, because we know that greater supply is important in reducing costs.

Budget 2019 is also making the housing market more fair and more affordable for Canadians. After all, for many families, their homes are their most important assets, so ensuring a healthy, competitive and stable housing market for all is a priority for our government.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pick up where I left off on the budget implementation bill.

I was talking about the importance of having a skilled workforce and giving Canadians the opportunity to find and acquire skills to adapt to the fast-changing employment market.

Technology changes the nature of work and it is evolving rapidly. That represents a new challenge for Canadian workers, who must get the necessary training to keep their existing jobs or prepare to meet new challenges. The jobs of tomorrow will require more skills, and workers will need to be more flexible throughout their careers.

Budget 2019 will help workers find the time and money they need to improve their skills by introducing such measures as the Canada training benefit. This benefit will help Canadians cover the cost of training.

We are working with the provinces and territories on establishing new labour provisions to protect jobs when workers leave on training.

Our government also wants to make sure that Canada's seniors have more money in their pockets when they retire. After a lifetime of raising children, supporting their families, building strong communities and growing the economy, we want our seniors to know they are not forgotten. Canadian seniors deserve a secure and dignified retirement, free of financial worries. With budget 2019, our government is making new investments to help make retirement more financially secure for more Canadians. For instance, many older Canadians want to stay active and involved in their communities through work, but they face significant reductions in their guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, or allowance benefits for each dollar of income above the current $3,500 earnings exemption. Those who are self-employed do not have access to the current exemption. Therefore, with Bill C-97, our government proposes to enhance the GIS earnings exemption by providing a full or partial exemption on up to $15,000 and extending it to self-employment income. That means more money in the pockets of eligible working seniors.

We also want to make sure that our seniors do not live in isolation, especially when faced with ageism or poor health. To combat this, budget 2019 will further its support to the new horizons for seniors program. The program supports projects that improve the quality of life for Canada's vulnerable seniors, creating more opportunities for seniors to be active in their communities. Specifically, budget 2019 is proposing additional funding of $100 million over five years, with $20 million per year ongoing for the program.

Furthermore, as announced in budget 2019 and in this bill, our government has proposed measures to ensure that seniors keep more money in their pockets and receive Canada pension plan benefits. These changes will proactively enrol contributors who are age 70 or older in 2020 but have not yet applied to receive their retirement benefit.

The Canada Pension Plan is a pillar of Canada's retirement system. It gives workers a secure, predictable benefit in retirement. Workers have to apply for CPP benefits, but some eligible seniors apply late or not at all. This change will ensure that they get it no matter what.

Finally, we believe that everyone deserves to have peace of mind when it comes to their retirement, especially people who have worked for their whole lives to help a company try to stay afloat. However, in recent years, the security of some workplace pensions has been challenged due to company bankruptcies, leaving pensioners out in the cold. That is why, following consultations with Canadians, budget 2019 proposes to introduce new measures to enhance the security of workplace pensions in the event of corporate insolvency. These measures, which are part of Bill C-97, would make insolvency proceedings fairer, set higher expectations for corporate behaviour and protect the hard-earned benefits of Canadians.

I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about Bill C-97 and how our government continues to work to strengthen Canada's middle class and those people working hard to join it. The measures I have highlighted today reflect the priorities of hard-working Canadians, regardless of the stage of life they are in. By voting in favour of this BIA, we are voting yes to affordable and accessible housing, a cleaner and safer environment, and a dignified retirement for those who have worked so diligently to deserve it.

It is worth reiterating that this BIA is entirely consistent with our government's agenda, an agenda that differs significantly from the former government's.

We are steering Canada in a direction that will truly reduce inequality. The previous government had very little interest in this important societal objective, namely reducing inequality in this country. On the contrary, during the Harper decade, inequality in Canada actually increased.

The gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population widened. When we were elected in 2015, our goal was to undo the damage caused to Canadian society. I think we have been very successful. Notably, poverty has been reduced by 20% over the past three years, which is huge. That is not easily done. This has been a lengthy process undertaken in concert with my colleagues, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, among others. The government tackled it with bold measures that are now paying off.

What were those measures? First, we had to cancel some of the tax breaks the previous government had implemented, tax breaks that invariably benefited only the rich. One example is the tax-free savings account, or TFSA. The Conservatives increased the contribution limit on these accounts to $11,000 during their last year in power.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and almost all the economists who were consulted at the time of the change, the TFSA was putting the government in a difficult fiscal position. The government would ultimately lose out of a large amount of revenue needed to fulfill its essential duties. The measure also very clearly benefited the highest-earning Canadians. A simple calculation shows that very few Canadians have $11,000 a year to invest in a TFSA after paying their taxes.

The man who invented this investment vehicle said at the time that this would eventually put Canada in a fiscal straitjacket. Stephen Harper's government simply did not care—not that reducing inequality was one of its priorities. This was the first measure we reviewed.

We also reviewed certain boutique tax credits, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed and found to also benefit the 10% or 15% wealthiest Canadians.

Furthermore, we completely reformed the family benefits system by creating the Canada child benefit, which, unlike the previous benefit system, gives more to those who need it most. We stopped sending cheques to millionaire families and made the benefit tax free, which was not the case under the former government.

We now know that this has had a direct impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It has reduced child poverty in Canada by 40%. Indeed, 300,000 children have been lifted out of poverty. I want to reiterate that that is something that all Canadians should be proud of.

Contrary to the direction in which it was going before the Liberal government took office, over the past three years, Canada has been clearly and firmly on the path toward reducing inequality and creating much more inclusive prosperity. Speaking of prosperity, I have to say that these measures also created growth. Although Canada was in a recession in 2015, it had the highest growth in the G7 in 2017. Canada was among the best in 2018 and, according to projections, we are still in a very good position since 900,000 jobs have been created over the past three years and the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in nearly 40 years. That is what comes of having a vision and ambitions for the country, things that were sorely lacking for a decade.

Take, for example, investments in science. My riding is privileged to be home to Laval University, which is a leader in the field of research in the Quebec City area, Quebec and Canada. One just has to wander the hallways of Laval University and talk to the researchers there to see just how lean the years from 2006 to 2015 were for them. There was not enough funding for research. When researchers and the scientific community are deprived of the funding they need to do their work, it closes the door on innovation in the long term.

There are all kinds of Laval University spin-offs in my region and across the country. Those companies are economic superstars that hire thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians to do high-value-added jobs. That was made possible because past governments have had the courage, vision, intelligence and wisdom to invest in the sciences. That was on hold for 10 years under Stephen Harper, but has been reinvigorated thanks to government measures of the past three years. Budget 2018 contained the biggest investment in science and research in this country's history. I find it so hard to believe—well, maybe not that hard—that opposition parties, especially the Conservatives, would vote against measures like this that lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity, for innovation in this country, for a thriving knowledge economy and for a more just and responsible society where inequality is on a steady decline. That is what the government has been working toward for the past three years. Our plan is working, and it is working very well.

I think budget 2019 and Bill C-97, the budget implementation bill, are fully consistent with those goals. Our budget supports seniors and youth, and we continue to invest strategically to protect the environment and foster innovation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-97, the budget implementation act, 2019. Tomorrow we will continue with debate on the BIA.

The Monday following our return from the two weeks in our ridings will be an opposition day.

Tuesday we will resume debate at second reading of the budget bill.

I also want to reiterate the comments of the Conservative whip on behalf of the Prime Minister as well as the Government of Canada to all members and to all Canadians who are celebrating. Happy Easter.

Oral Questions

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I move, given that, (a) Canadians expect that changes to our laws should be democratically and rigorously debated in the House of Commons; (b) all parties in the House have spoken against the use of omnibus bills to hide changes in initiatives from scrutiny; (c) the world is experiencing a global refugee crisis; and (d) Lloyd Axworthy is condemning proposed changes contained in the omnibus budget bill to the asylum system, while Faith Goldy is cheering them on, that in the opinion of the House, (a) Canada is at serious risk of being on the wrong side of history and (b) the government must immediately withdraw division 16 of part 4 of Bill C-97 and table it as a stand-alone piece of legislation to ensure that Canada continues to live up to its obligations under international law.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my formal speech, I cannot help but mention to the member for Sarnia—Lambton that, as she keeps quoting the Fraser Institute, that study has been debunked by just about anyone who knows how to use a calculator.

She should look at the OECD report that just came out this morning saying that the Canadian middle class has one of the lowest tax burdens of the OECD countries. That is largely due to the changes we have made by lowering taxes for the middle class and introducing the Canada child benefit, which is more generous and more progressive. I would suggest that she and other members broaden their horizons and perhaps look at sources other than the Fraser Institute, as that study in particular is just plain fallacious.

I am pleased to be here today to speak to budget implementation act, 2019, No. 1 and about the measures we presented in budget 2019 to strengthen the middle class.

I would like to use my time today to highlight some important measures we are proposing in this budget implementation bill that build on what we have done so far. I believe that this bill will help us continue to improve the lives of middle-class Canadians and those who are working hard to join the middle class.

Before I explain the various measures in this bill, which presents the next phase of our plan, I want to remind hon. members of how we got to where we are today.

Nearly four years ago, Canadians voted for a government that promised to invest in the areas that mattered most to them, like well-paying jobs and more help for families facing a high cost of living that keeps rising, strong, connected communities, and better opportunities for young Canadians. We have kept our promises. For nearly four years now, our government has been dedicated to strengthening and growing the middle class and providing real help to those working very hard to join it and to low-income Canadians, to make sure everyone has a real and fair chance to succeed and reach their full potential.

First, the government created the Canada child benefit to help families with the cost of raising their children. This benefit has lifted close to 300,000 children out of poverty over the past three years. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, Statistics Canada reported that poverty has fallen by 20% in Canada over the past three years. We have been able to lift more than 800,000 Canadians out of poverty thanks to these policies, which the opposition voted against at every turn.

Over nine million Canadians are benefiting from the middle-class tax cut, which is helping them save more and buy what they need.

The new Canada workers benefit also encourages more people to join and remain in the job market. It provides real help to more than two million Canadians working hard to join the middle class. It helped lift 70,000 people out of poverty. The enhanced Canada pension plan provides current and future Canadian workers with increased income security upon retirement.

Historic investments through the national housing strategy are helping more Canadians find safe and affordable housing.

Overall, these measures will have a long-term impact on all Canadians.

With our government's plan, the Canadian economy created more than 900,000 new jobs, most of them full-time. This has led to the lowest unemployment rate in the past 40 years. There were particularly significant job gains for women.

We know that we cannot rest on our laurels. If we want to continue growing the economy and the middle class, we must continue these efforts, which have proven to be successful these past four years. This is what budget 2019, which we are presenting today in the House, is all about.

Through budget 2019, the government is taking further steps to help build communities that Canadians can be proud to call home.

Managing household costs is one example of where some Canadians struggle. For instance, the price of electricity is a rising concern. Rates keep going up, outpacing salary increases, making it more and more difficult to make ends meet. Therefore, our government is doing more to make sure that families can afford their monthly electricity bills. Budget 2019 proposes to invest more than $1 billion to increase energy efficiency in residential, commercial and multi-unit buildings, a measure that is included in this budget implementation act. This money could go a long way toward making Canada's homes and buildings more energy efficient, which would help reduce Canadians' electricity bills, whether they are homeowners, renters or building operators, and it would help build more sustainable communities.

Further to the point of building up communities, sometimes spending allocated from the federal government to provinces and territories is caught up in bureaucratic deadlock. When this happens, it prevents cities and towns from making progress on important projects, such as road maintenance, water infrastructure, public transit and recreational infrastructure.

Budget 2019 proposes to support municipalities' local infrastructure priorities by doubling the federal municipal infrastructure commitment with a further $2.2 billion in 2018-19. This would give municipalities and first nations communities the funds needed to pay for crucial repairs and other important local projects. By supporting this BIA, hon. members would be supporting this $2.2 billion injection that would provide much-needed infrastructure funds for communities of all sizes across the country. The legislation before us today would ensure that the money would get to where the needs are.

Building communities Canadians are proud to call home also means ensuring that these communities are prepared to respond to an emergency. When tragedy strikes, every second counts.

Since 1985, the Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service, STARS, has provided rapid and specialized emergency helicopter ambulance services to patients who are critically ill or injured in communities across western Canada, including in indigenous communities and in national parks. Thanks to STARS, Canadians who live in rural and remote communities have better access to emergency care.

In recognition of the vital role STARS plays in delivering access to emergency care in the communities it serves, budget 2019 proposes to provide a one-time investment of $65 million in 2018-19 for STARS to replace its aging fleet with new emergency ambulance helicopters. Support for today's legislation would directly support this measure.

On housing, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, our government is taking important steps to make housing more affordable and more accessible.

Buying a house or a condo is probably the most important investment most Canadians will make in their lifetimes. However, too many Canadians are not able to enter the market. That is why, through budget 2019 and with Bill C-97 before us, our government would build on Canada's national housing strategy and take action to improve the affordability of housing, especially for first-time homebuyers.

To help more middle-class families find affordable homes today, we would offer new, targeted support for first-time homebuyers through the first-time homebuyers incentive. The idea is to reduce the monthly payments required to buy a home to give first-time homebuyers greater flexibility, both in purchasing a home and in managing its ongoing costs.

Under the first-time homebuyers incentive, eligible first-time homebuyers who had the minimum down payment for an insured mortgage would apply to finance a portion of the home purchase through a shared equity mortgage with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. With a shared equity mortgage, first-time homebuyers would save money every month, giving them more money to pay down their traditional mortgage sooner or to spend on their priorities.

As we all know, one of the hardest things for a first-time homebuyer is to scrape together enough funds for a down payment and to cover the associated costs of a home purchase. To help Canadians on this front, this legislation proposes to increase the homebuyers plan withdrawal limit to $35,000 from $25,000. With these new measures and improvements, the dream of owning a home would be a reality for more and more Canadians.

Realizing this dream is also in good part a function of Canadians' ability to get good, well-paid jobs so they can afford that first home.

to that end, we must—

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to rise to speak to Bill C-97, an act that would begin implementing budget 2019, a budget that builds on three and a half years of our government's hard work, a budget that shows our strong commitment to building a better Canada, a more inclusive Canada and a more economically prosperous Canada. That prosperity can be seen at home in Atlantic Canada and I am proud of the record investments our government is delivering for my region. Never have I seen a prime minister and numerous ministers pay such close attention and respect to the region.

It is no secret that Atlantic Canada experienced a decade of Conservative cuts and closures under Stephen Harper. We had a prime minister in Canada who made his feelings toward that region very clear. Atlantic Canada, Stephen Harper believed, was a culture of defeat. I can say first-hand that Atlantic Canadians are proud and hard-working. They are innovators and, in fact, game-changers. Atlantic Canadians overwhelmingly stood up against Stephen Harper's disdain for their region and sent a strong message in 2015 that they had had enough. We will not forget how the Conservatives treated Atlantic Canada.

Under the Conservatives' current leader, just a short while ago, we watched the Conservatives vote against funding for ACOA, the economic driver for Atlantic Canada. We watched them vote against funding for veterans, health care and so many things that are so important to Atlantic Canadians. I can say that this budget, just like our previous budgets, is very good for Atlantic Canada because we believe in Atlantic Canadians.

The best part of my job is seeing the economic decisions our government has made benefit my home riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. We know that our investments in the middle class are working. Since November 2015, Canadians have created over 900,000 new jobs and most are full time. Now the unemployment rate is at the lowest rate in more than 40 years.

Our investments in the middle class are complemented by our commitment to investment in small business. That is why it is important to us to create the type of environment where small businesses can flourish, grow and employ more Atlantic Canadians. We have lowered the small business tax from 11% to 9% and made numerous regulatory changes to remove the red tape that was holding businesses back. We can see the difference it is making across the country, especially in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

There has never been a better time to live in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The city is experiencing strong growth and innovation. We can feel the opportunity around us. Downtown Dartmouth is now the trendiest part of the municipality, with restaurants like The Canteen, Battery Park, Portland Street Crêperie, Stone Pizza, Humble Pie Kitchen, Souper Duper Soup, Yeah Yeahs Pizza and so many more. My favourite thing to do on the weekend is visit the Alderney Landings Farmers' Market. I grab a cup of coffee from Port City, grab a few things from some of the local vendors and listen to a little live local music. I always see folks hopping off the Halifax ferry to the Dartmouth side to attend the farmers' market.

All around Portland Street, entrepreneurs are breathing new life into the community with shops like Grund Designer Goldsmith, Janet's Flowers, New Scotland Clothing, Strange Adventures and so many more. Of course, there is Kept, Room 152, Custom Curves and Audrey's Little Shop of Plants, arguably the coolest name for a business ever, and that growth extends right into Cole Harbour. North Brewing will be opening soon on Cole Harbour Road. We have wonderful restaurants like Jamieson's, the Palladium, the Brass Rail and the brand new East Coast Dumpling House. The list goes on.

Dartmouth is also home to lots of great craft breweries, from Nine Locks to Spindrift, Brightwood to New Scotland and we cannot forget Lake City Cider. Plus there are amazing breweries and distilleries right across Nova Scotia. This budget finally proposes that the government remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of alcohol so that our breweries can continue to grow.

Budget 2019 makes strategic investments in programs and services that will create long-lasting, positive impacts on the community. From the new El training benefit to the national dementia strategy, our investments will make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

With some programs, it can be hard to see the direct impact that they have on the lives of Canadians. However, with Ready, Willing and Able, we can visit with entrepreneurs across Canada and see the positive impact the program is having in their lives and in their communities. Ready, Willing and Able helps create employment opportunities for persons with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities. Some time ago, I had a chance to meet with Iain, the incredible young entrepreneur behind Dartmouth, Nova Scotia's Iain's Tartan Bakery. Iain bakes delicious gluten-free and dairy-free baked goods. We can usually find his breads and his sweets at the Alderney Landing Farmers' Market.

This program matters. It is why all of our members of Parliament in Nova Scotia rallied around this program and advocated very hard for its inclusion in budget 2019. This budget includes a $12-million investment in Ready, Willing and Able so it can continue to create good employment opportunities for persons with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities.

With Canada's economy among the fastest growing in the G7, it is important that all Canadians have the opportunities that they need to succeed. The Nova Scotia Association of Realtors has advocated for stronger resources so more Nova Scotians can make home ownership an attainable goal. That is why we introduced the new first-time homebuyer incentive that will make home ownership more affordable for first-time buyers.

I firmly believe that national pharmacare would save the Province of Nova Scotia a significant amount of money that could be used to improve health care services in our province. As members know, I am a strong supporter of national pharmacare and our government is taking crucial steps toward making this a reality. We believe that no one in Canada should have to choose between paying the rent or paying for the prescription drugs that they need.

We know that good, strong, local infrastructure can make all the difference in our communities. As a former municipal councillor, I understand that municipalities are best placed to understand the infrastructure needs of their communities on the ground. Budget 2019 includes a game-changer for the Halifax Regional Municipality. Through this budget, HRM would receive a top-up of more than $26 million through the federal gas tax fund delivered this year. This is huge because the funds can be used for local infrastructure priorities like waste water, drinking water, cultural and tourism projects, and much more. It is a massive opportunity for our municipality and I cannot wait to see what projects are built with this funding.

Organizations like Nourish Nova Scotia have been advocating for a national school food program for some time. Recently, I visited Dartmouth South Academy and saw first-hand the difference that these programs make in the lives of our children. The budget includes a commitment for a national food policy, and I am excited that the budget also calls for the development of a national school food program.

As many folks in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour know too well, we must take action to protect pensions in Canada. Budget 2019 proposes the introduction of significant legislative amendments to make insolvency proceedings fairer and more transparent for pensioners and workers.

Low-income seniors want to know that they can work part time without worrying about their GIS being clawed back, which is why I am glad to see that the budget proposes an enhancement to the guaranteed income supplement that would provide increased take-home pay for low-income working seniors.

This budget is good for Canadians. I firmly believe that our investments in health care and our decision to move forward with national pharmacare will be a game-changer for my home province of Nova Scotia. Instead of austerity and cuts, we chose to invest in Canadians. We chose to invest in the middle class, in small businesses and in good, local infrastructure priorities. This budget is about making sure that all Canadians have the ability to succeed now and into the future.

The House resumed consideration from April 10 of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on this issue and his expertise in the area of bankruptcy and insolvency.

Very few changes are ever made to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, an important piece of legislation that is exclusively under federal jurisdiction and that governs bankruptcies in this country. The government had an opportunity to make a real difference, to propose more meaningful changes than the ones brought forward in Bill C-97. It could have put creditors first, including the employees and pensioners of companies, in order to prevent any more problems such as the ones we saw at Nortel, Sears or companies in my colleague's riding from ever happening again. This is another opportunity missed by this government. This government says all the right things and makes all kinds of promises, but the results fall far short of the expectations and recommendations of experts, as my colleague pointed out. Experts have looked closely at these matters and are familiar with the reality. That is true of my colleague, who is known to be somewhat of an expert in this area.

This is another missed opportunity for the government, which is just relying on the good faith of these companies' administrators and trustees to properly distribute all of the bankruptcy assets and pay the creditors their due. This is an inadequate measure that falls well short of what experts and leaders in this field were hoping for.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to add my voice to the debate that just began on Bill C-97, another budget implementation bill from the Liberal government.

I rise for the first time as the finance critic for the New Democratic Party. I thank my leader, the member for Burnaby South, for trusting me and for granting me the privilege of serving in the NDP caucus on issues related to finances and the economy as well as on tax issues, as I already do in my role as critic for national revenue.

I am very pleased to be able to continue the fight for greater social, fiscal and even environmental justice, just as we have been doing for quite some time now. That is extremely important to me.

Unfortunately, I must say, this bill falls quite short of the expectations we had, on this side of the House, as well as the expectations of most Canadians. It falls far short of what we would expect from the Liberal government, which has failed to fulfill the promises it made during the election campaign.

It is all the more disappointing because we are debating the Liberal government's last budget implementation bill. This is the government's last real opportunity to implement its legislative proposals for moving our country forward. I am very disappointed that several of the Liberal government's promised initiatives are not found in this bill. The Liberal government will definitely not keep certain promises. In the next election campaign, the Liberals will have to defend why they are keeping Canadians waiting for beneficial and important measures that would improve the lives of most of our constituents. I am truly disappointed, even though some measures have been implemented.

It is difficult to examine such a huge bill. I will reiterate the comments of my colleague from Vancouver East, who earlier called this an omnibus bill. I, too, consider this to be an omnibus bill because of its nature, the variety of laws affected and the fact that many of these measures are not found in the budget document presented to the House on March 19.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will consider the points my colleague raised to show that this is an omnibus bill that meets the criteria set out in the new rules of the House of Commons.

I hope that parliamentarians will be able to have their say through separate votes, at the very least. This would allow us to make decisions as parliamentarians and do our jobs properly. It is very difficult for a member of Parliament to vote on a wide range of measures. We may agree with some and not others, but at the end of the day we have to make a choice.

We have to choose between measures that may be good but are connected to bad budget measures or bad legislative measures, which means that we are forced to oppose the entire document. I hope that the Chair will decide to divide this bill so that there will be several votes, which would allow us to better represent our constituents on such important issues. I am confident that we will be able to make good decisions.

Moving on from the form of this bill, I would like to talk about the content. This budget misses the mark and is in keeping with the trend we have seen in recent years and more obviously in recent months and days: putting the wealthy and Liberal Party cronies above all else. Lobbyists have direct access to the Prime Minister's Office, and the second they knock at the door or make a call, they get what they want. The office does everything it can to make them happy.

This budget is a continuation of the Liberals' policy to benefit the party's friends, insiders and donors, like SNC-Lavalin and Loblaws, which have joined the list of companies in the Liberal government's good graces. I could also mention KPMG and big pharma, which still have considerable influence in the Prime Minister's Office. Lastly, we cannot forget Kinder Morgan, the big, Houston-based oil company that pocketed $4.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money.

These kinds of actions give us a glimpse of a party's and a government's true values. This budget is essentially the continuation of a policy to benefit wealthy insiders. It obviously does not benefit the ordinary Canadians who truly need help. These people are struggling every day, every week and every month to make ends meet.

Pharmacare is one important element that is nowhere to be found in this bill even though it is an obvious and easy solution that people have been talking about for years. The Liberals have been promising pharmacare for over 20 years, but today, the parliamentary secretary talked about doing things the right way, studying the matter before taking action, laying the groundwork to create ideal conditions and setting up an advisory council before creating a universal pharmacare program. They have been promising that for 20 years. No more excuses. This is long overdue, but the government keeps saying that it is too soon to take action on this file because the conditions are not ideal yet.

People in Sherbrooke have talked to me about being unable to get some of their prescription drugs. One of my constituents has to take three drugs prescribed by his doctor, but because he cannot afford all three, he had to ask his pharmacist which one was the most important. That is an everyday reality for people in Sherbrooke and elsewhere in Canada. In this budget implementation bill, the government is telling people they will have to keep waiting even though everyone who has studied the problem agrees on the solutions. The government is still asking people to choose between medication and food or medication and rent.

Sadly, the government lacks the courage of its convictions. It refuses to stand up to the big pharmaceutical and insurance companies that object to this idea. These are the actions that show us where the Liberal government stands, namely on the side of the companies. These companies are resisting efforts to create a pharmacare program, because they see it as a threat to their bottom line. Everyone knows that drug and insurance companies are immensely profitable, and they are afraid of losing some of their market share, which would hurt their profits.

Once again, the Liberals are siding with big business over Canadians, who just want access to quality medication so they can heal and participate fully and actively in the economy. A healthy population means lower costs for the provincial health care systems, which are straining at the seams.

This is another example of the Liberal government's wait-and-see approach and its habit of putting off important decisions. Powerful lobbies are influencing the Prime Minister's Office and shutting down any good ideas that could hurt their bottom line.

Another thing the bill fails to mention is the environment. I brought this up earlier. The environment is the single most important issue for our generation and our society, especially now in 2019. It was already very important, but it is even more critical today. The environment is virtually a non-factor in the bill. As I was saying earlier, this bill is the Liberals' last chance to take a stand before the election, to propose meaningful and hopefully bold legislation. However, with respect to the environment, they are proposing a few paltry measures here and there. They are proposing measures for purchases of electric vehicles and renovation projects. Given the scale of the problem, these measures are grossly insufficient.

This clearly demonstrates that the Liberals are siding with large corporations on this issue. The major oil companies are still getting subsidies, and just recently they benefited from a $4.5-billion cheque. A single company got that big of a cheque from Canadian taxpayers, from the government. Once again, the government is saying that we need to put off any changes to oil subsidies. The Liberals have put that off until later, probably until after the election, if they are lucky enough to get re-elected and if we do not take their place. That is the reality of a wait-and-see government.

The government wants to put off these changes until later. Major lobby groups have been putting pressure on the government. Billionaire oil companies are getting cheques from the government and keeping their subsidies. Bill C-97 would have been a good opportunity to put an end to shameful oil subsidies that are being condemned around the world. Other countries have taken action to end oil subsidies. This is yet another example of a government putting the interests of large corporations above those of ordinary Canadians. Canadians deserve as much attention as the large corporations are getting from the Liberal government.

The most recent example of this is the famous $12-million subsidy. That is a lot of money. We tend to forget sometimes how much money we are really talking about. A significant amount of money, $12 million, was given to a highly profitable company, Loblaws. That is how the government chooses to fight climate change. It invests in companies that have all the money in the world. If there is a grocery store that has the means to buy itself some fridges, it is certainly Loblaws. In every one of our ridings there are grocery stores that are struggling to make ends meet every month. They want to pay their employees well and provide good working conditions. They see the government caving to pressure from multinationals like Loblaws and giving them the money they need to replace their refrigerators. It is so frustrating for taxpayers, businesses, small grocers, or any business that wants to become greener and invest in improving their energy efficiency, to see that corporations are the ones getting the subsidies to upgrade their refrigerators. It is the right thing to do, but the government chose the wrong target.

I also want to mention some of the proposed measures in the budget that are just half-measures. In some cases, it might be a step in the right direction. However, in other cases, the government again hits the wrong target.

There is the home buyers plan, which allows home buyers to withdraw some money from their RRSPs to invest in buying a house. The government told us that this measure will help millennials access home ownership. We recognize the importance of encouraging access to home ownership. In fact, we also proposed something to that effect in the past few weeks.

The national housing crisis must be addressed. It is clearly an important and serious issue for our country. The Liberals' solution involves expanding the home buyers' plan, allowing people to withdraw $10,000 more from their RRSPs to use as a down payment, raising the limit from $25,000 to $35,000.

Maybe some of my colleagues had young people in their ridings come and knock on their doors to say that $25,000 from their RRSPs was not enough and they needed more, $35,000, in order to buy a house. That makes no sense.

Perhaps some members will tell me that happened to them, but most young people who come to see me are not telling me they need more money from their RRSPs. They are telling me that they simply do not have any money to put towards a down payment, that they simply cannot afford to buy a house. It is not about their RRSPs or how much they can withdraw. I do not know how the Liberals came up with that solution. On top of that, they claim to be targeting millennials.

This may benefit some people who want to buy their first property, but it is certainly not something that will help millennials, given that statistics show that only 35% of them have RRSPs. It makes no sense to target this measure at millennials.

The bill also amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. This clearly does not meet the expectations of many unions and stakeholders involved in this important file, who want pensions to be protected from unscrupulous executives who will do anything to get their hands on as much money as possible before declaring bankruptcy.

What the government failed to do in this bill was change the creditors' priority ranking. It was the government's last chance to change creditors' order of priority in a budget implementation bill. It was an opportunity to put employees, their pensions, their salaries and their benefits first in the priority ranking. However, the government again chose to side with big business and lobbyists, who argued that it would not be good for the economy. They told the government not to give priority to employees because it would stifle investment. The government always gives in to these types of arguments by lobbyists who knock at the Prime Minister's door. Sears executives would like us to believe that they acted in good faith. That was another missed opportunity.

Another missed opportunity here has to do with student debt. The government says it will postpone collecting interest on student debt. That is how the government plans to help students drowning in debt once they complete their studies.

The government could support those students and help them become homeowners, as mentioned earlier, but no, students will continue to pay interest on their students loans, on what they owe the federal government. The government had one last opportunity to do something but missed it.

The Liberals are squandering their last chance. They are going to tell Canadians to wait a bit longer, but I think the last four years have proven to Canadians that whatever the Liberals say during a campaign is not worth much at all. The Liberals have had four years to make these changes and deliver on their promises, but they have clearly failed to do so. They have helped the rich at the expense of ordinary Canadians who really need help. It is a great shame those ordinary Canadians must suffer the consequences. The government is telling them to keep holding their breath.

That is unfortunate and is the reason why Canadians will have to choose another economic vision, another vision for our country, a vision for an energy transition, a true vision for the environment, a true vision for pharmacare, a true vision for housing, a true vision for helping people who are really in need. Canadians are going to have to choose people who will stand up to the big oil and economic interests of multinationals, which try to get everything they want from the Prime Minister's Office. Canadians will have people who stand with them.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although it was not the subject of the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-97, I really was fascinated by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke's search through the individuals who were part of the tentacles of SNC-Lavalin. I have been following this too, and I am very concerned that regardless of what party is in power, it seems to have a full grip.

For instance, I wonder if she could comment on the role of Gwyn Morgan, who was a very strong confidant and supporter of former prime minister Stephen Harper. He was put forward by Stephen Harper to be the chair of the Public Appointments Commission. He of course was the chair of the board of SNC-Lavalin during all of the alleged Libyan affairs, including also being the chair of its board of governance.

Could she also comment on the appointment of Arthur Porter to the highest position of trust in the land, by former prime minister Stephen Harper, to be chair of the review committee for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS? I mention that appointment in relation to SNC-Lavalin because, as we all know now, Arthur Porter was a co-conspirator with SNC-Lavalin in the bribery case involving the Montreal hospital.

My concern, and I wonder if the hon. member shares it, is regardless of who is in the PMO, SNC-Lavalin seems to know who to go to in order to get what it wants.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is Bill C-97. It is the government's much vaunted budget implementation bill. The Liberals have been wondering when we are going to get around to addressing it, but they are not addressing it.

If we take a look around, we see how many people are in the House, how few are on that side—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am really finding this research fascinating and I have been watching Ben Chin's association with the Christy Clark government in B.C., but I am not yet seeing a connection to the bill we are currently debating. I really find it interesting, and I am not being facetious, but I just realized it had nothing to do with Bill C-97.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for constituents in the snowy upper Ottawa Valley riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it is an honour to be their representative in this place.

In 2019, there is a sense among Canadians that the promise of progress, the idea that with hard work everyone could build a better life, is no longer true. The greatest threat to Canada's prosperity today is government, not climate change. Any country faced with massive government interference can be brought to starvation. Blaming poverty on climate change not only lets the government off the hook for bad policy but also encourages the enactment of harmful, inhumane policies.

Today's poverty has little to do with climate change. The most commonly held characteristics of affluent countries are greater personal liberty, private property rights, the rule of law, and an economic system closer to capitalism than to Communism. That is the recipe for prosperity.

The first thing that hits Canadians when they look at the budget document is that there is no plan for balanced budgets. This is a socialist budget.

Economists and the marketplace are telling Canadians that we will be in a recession within the next 12 to 18 months that will significantly impact the underlying projections that budgets are based on, as well as the fact that the government has been wildly spending at a time when Canada should have continued with the balanced budget policy that was left to them by our previous Conservative government.

Compounding the recession that is coming are the foreign policy failures of the government, particularly the inability of the Prime Minister to manage trade policy, first with our largest trading partner, America, and the tariffs on lumber and steel, and then with the trans-Pacific partnership that was basically handed to the government by our previous Conservative government, ready to go, and now with China and the dispute that is causing our farmers to suffer.

The government may be optimistically predicting GDP growth over the next year; however, the external shock of not ratifying the new NAFTA deal, the loss of confidence in the stock market in how Canada is managed and the broader fallout of a U.S.-China trade war mean all bets are off when it comes to predicting the size and duration of any future recession.

Canadians understand that when government runs a deficit, particularly one of the size and duration we see today in the 2019 budget document and Bill C-97, it means the Liberal Party is basically handing the bill not just to the next generation but to generations after that. It is recognized that there will be a price someone will have to pay, and it will be our children, grandchildren and their children.

This budget is being likened to someone being bought a very expensive gift, only to find out it was their own credit card that was being used to pay for it. If the gift was a shirt, it would be made of cheap cloth and two sizes too small.

People who live in Ontario have seen this all before. Canadians who follow my speeches in the House of Commons will have been warned about disgraced former prime minister top aide Gerry Butts, who was forced to resign over his role in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal. As a principal political operative for Dalton McGuinty and whatever backroom dealings he had with McGuinty's defeated party replacement, by trashing the Ontario economy, disgraced former PMO operative Gerald Butts can share the credit for the Toronto Liberal policy of “heat or eat” among seniors and others on fixed incomes.

In Ottawa, “heat or eat” refers to the carbon tax.

Canadians would not be as familiar with Butts' close buddy, Ben Chin, until the SNC-Lavalin scandal exposed his backroom role in that sordid affair. During the former attorney general's testimony before the House of Commons justice committee, she mentioned two names. The disgraced Gerry Butts was mentioned five times, and the now-infamous Ben Chin seven times.

In Ottawa, Ben Chin is chief of staff to the finance minister. In his role as political commissar, as was made clear during the SNC-Lavalin testimony, Ben Chin is there to promote the interests of his party over the good of Canadians.

This is a critical point to raise during the budget implementation debate, as Canadians need to be aware of Ben Chin and whether the interference role he had in Toronto is now happening in Ottawa, and at what scale.

Mr. Chin joined the finance minister's office as senior adviser and worked with the minister on the rollout of the government's third budget. The decision to hire Mr. Chin for the top position in the finance minister's office suggests a desire on Gerald Butts' part for an individual to keep close tabs on the finance minister.

That change marked the second significant staffing move in the finance minister's office. Previously, the Prime Minister's policy adviser, Justin To, another of Butts' confidants named in the SNC-Lavalin scandal, was shifted from the Prime Minister's Office to take over as policy and budget director for the finance minister. Ben Chin played the same role with former principal secretary Gerald Butts in Toronto in the disgraced Dalton McGuinty regime: run interference.

Well-informed observer Parker Gallant said this in the blog “Energy Perspectives”:

For the benefit of those who didn’t follow Ontario politics during the McGuinty/Wynne era, it’s worth pointing out both Gerry Butts and Ben Chin played significant roles in Ontario, especially the ill-fated electricity file.

Butts is credited as the mastermind behind Dalton McGuinty’s election as Ontario’s Premier: Butts was, according to the Toronto Star, “the man they call ‘the brains behind the operation’ and policy architect of the Liberal government since 2003.”

Butts left the McGuinty government in mid-2008, after he and the Ontario Liberal team set the stage for the Green Energy Act, by pushing for renewable wind and solar projects and to close coal plants. Butts went off to lead the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) for four years before joining [the Prime Minister] as his political advisor.

The article continues:

Ben Chin, engaged as a “political advisor” to Dalton McGuinty, was the McGuinty candidate chosen to run against the NDP’s Peter Tabuns in a byelection in 2006. Chin lost, but returned as a “senior advisor” to Premier McGuinty’s office where he again worked with Gerry Butts. Chin left for the private sector and a short while later was hired back as Vice President Communications for the OPA (Ontario Power Authority). The OPA was the creation of Dwight Duncan when he was McGuinty’s Minister of Energy and became the Crown corporation to enact the myriad of things mired in the Green Energy & Green Economy Act (GEA).

Chin later became embroiled in the “gas plant” scandal as the Premier’s principal contact with the negotiating team dealing with TransCanada et al on compensation issues related to the cancellation. Ontario’s ratepayers know how that turned out! While Chin occupied his position with the OPA, [former executive director of the environmental group Energy Probe] Tom Adams and I were investigating the gas plant scandal by reviewing thousands of documents.

Mr. Gallant goes on:

The following reveals some of our findings in an article I wrote about the “smart grid” and a Brad Duguid directive.

Co-incidentally (noted by Tom Adams), the Duguid directive is dated the same day as the e-mail exchange between Alicia Johnston (formerly a senior political staffer for Energy Minister Brad Duguid, later promoted to the Premier’s Office) and Ben Chin (a senior Ontario Power Authority executive).

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity)]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. The act would implement important measures in our 2019 budget that the Minister of Finance tabled last month in the House.

Budget 2019 comes at a time when Canada's economy is strong. Thanks to the hard work of Canadians, more than 900,000 jobs have been created since 2015, most of them full time. Unemployment is at 40-year lows.

New jobs are being created across the country, but many of these new well-paying opportunities require a level of education or a skill set that people do not have the time or the money to get. Many Canadians feel as though they are missing out.

Young people who are striking out into the job market are hoping to get their first full-time job, one that pays well and gives them a good start to their working life.

That is why budget 2019 has a particular focus on the challenges faced by young Canadians. Young Canadians are more diverse, educated and socially connected than ever before. Like all Canadians, they want the chance to work in a good career, buy a home and build a better future for themselves, their families and their communities.

Whether at town halls or during online discussions, young Canadians have delivered the same message to the government: Invest in a plan that helps youth overcome the barriers to their success. Our government has listened. With budget 2019, our government is making strategic and responsible investments to address these challenges and provide young Canadians with access to opportunities that position them for well-paid jobs today and tomorrow, make it easier for them to have better access to home ownership and help them thrive.

Just as our government helps more children get the best start in life with measures like the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift nearly 300,000 children out of poverty since 2015, it remains equally focused on what comes next for young people, whether they seek to purchase a first home, enrol in university or college, or start their career.

Measures that address those issues are what I will be speaking about today, because budget 2019 is not just a plan to create jobs; it is targeted help where people need it the most.

We can see that approach when it comes to housing. Many Canadians might feel that because of high house prices in some of Canada's largest cities, buying a home is increasingly out of reach. We know that young people especially are being priced out of some house and condo markets. Average home prices today are about eight times larger than the average full-time income of Canadians aged 25 to 34. That is markedly different from a few decades ago, when they were about four times larger.

To address the difficulty that young families may be having in buying their first home, through Bill C-97, budget 2019 proposes a new first-time home buyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadians can lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership more affordable.

The incentive would provide funding of 5% or 10% of the home purchase price for existing or new homes respectively, with no ongoing monthly payments required. The program is expected to help approximately 100,000 Canadians buy homes that they can afford.

Through budget 2019 and Bill C-97, our government is also increasing the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit for the first time in a decade. This would provide first-time home buyers with greater access to their registered retirement savings plan savings to buy a home.

Specifically, the budget proposes to increase the HBP withdrawal limit to $35,000 from the previous $25,000 limit. Young Canadians are the main beneficiaries of the new first-time home buyer incentive and of the increase in the withdrawal limit on the home buyers' plan. They are the Canadians who are especially likely to be prospective first-time homebuyers and to live in urban centres where affordability gaps are pronounced.

These two measures to make home ownership more affordable for Canadians are the next step in our national housing strategy, which is included in the bill we are debating today.

For more affordable rental units in areas with low vacancy, budget 2019 would also expand the rental construction financing incentive, helping to build more affordable rental options for Canadians to live near where they work or study and tackling homelessness across the country through the reaching home strategy.

Our government also believes in doing its part to make sure young Canadians can access the post-secondary education they need to get the jobs they want. Our government is committed to making post-secondary education more affordable for students and to helping young Canadians pursue higher education without the undue financial burden that often comes with post-secondary learning.

While Canada is among the most educated countries in the world, too many Canadians still face barriers that prevent them from pursuing post-secondary studies or skilled trades programs. This is why, since 2015, our government has helped make university, college and apprenticeship programs more affordable and accessible. From boosting Canada student grants to lowering the interest rate on Canada student loans to improving access to loans for vulnerable students, our government is making sure more young people have the opportunity to go to university or college.

With budget 2019, the government is taking new steps to help Canadians access post-secondary education.

Budget 2019 proposes to lower the floating interest rate on Canada student loans to the prime rate, helping close to one million borrowers who are repaying their student loans and saving the average borrower approximately $2,000 over the time of the loan.

In addition, budget 2019 has proposed to waive interest payments during the six-month grace period after graduation, helping approximately 200,000 borrowers every year transition successfully from their studies to work.

To make these student loans more accessible, a modernized Canada student loans program will better respond to the needs of vulnerable student borrowers.

The investment in budget 2019 includes increased supports for students with permanent disabilities as well as the introduction of interest-free and payment-free medical and parental leave for student loan borrowers.

Also, budget 2019 proposes to expand parental leave coverage for post-secondary students and post-doctoral fellows who receive federal granting council funding from six months to 12 months. This will help parents to better balance work obligations with family responsibilities, such as child care.

When combined with the government's previous investments in student financial assistance, budget 2019's proposals respond to the reality of rising tuition costs, rising living costs and the changing nature of work faced by today's students and youth, and they go far to help achieve the goal of making higher education more affordable.

Barriers to pursuing post-secondary education and finding good, well-paying work are also certainly a challenge that Canada's indigenous peoples continue to face.

Engaging more indigenous people in the workforce will boost economic outcomes for the nearly 1.5 million indigenous Canadians, as well as spur economic opportunities and raise living standards for all Canadians. That is why budget 2019 proposes to provide distinction-based funding for post-secondary education to help first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation students better access post-secondary education and obtain the skills and experience they need to succeed.

With regard to work placement, experience and apprenticeship, beyond the cost of post-secondary education is another reality that many young Canadians face. After graduation, just having a degree or a diploma is often not enough to secure a good, well-paying job. They want more opportunities to learn while they work and to work while they learn.

This is why our government is committed to helping young Canadians find relevant on-the-job experience and employer-relevant skills that will help to ensure a smooth transition into the workforce.

Budget 2019 supports this commitment by proposing to provide more on-the-job learning opportunities for young Canadians who want relevant, real-world work experience. The government would do this by extending the student work placement program as part of a plan to create up to 84,000 new student work placements per year by 2023-24. This will be a significant step toward ensuring that 10 years from now, every young Canadian who wants a work placement will be able to get one.

At the same time, by providing partnerships with businesses to support work placements through the modernized youth employment strategy, the government will help more young people develop new skills and obtain professional experience earlier. The proposed modernized youth employment strategy will have the aim of ensuring that all young people have access to the supports they need, including enhanced supports for young people facing more serious barriers to joining and staying in the workforce.

Furthermore, in an increasingly global economy and labour market, Canadian youth need to develop a range of skills, many of which are best fostered through international experiences such as travelling, studying and working overseas. Building on the commitment in the 2018 fall economic statement to develop a new international education strategy, budget 2019 proposes to support Canadian post-secondary students and young people pursuing opportunities to travel, study and work abroad.

The government is also acting to attract more top-tier foreign students to Canada by promoting Canadian educational institutions as high-calibre places to study.

In addition, budget 2019 includes measures to encourage more Canadians to pursue volunteer opportunities. Service opportunities give young Canadians the chance to gain valuable work and life experience, build on what they have learned through their formal education and give back to their community in meaningful ways.

To encourage and support more service opportunities, in January 2018 our government launched the design phase of the Canada service corps, a youth service initiative. The expanded Canada service corps proposed in 2019 will help young Canadians serve their communities while gaining valuable skills and leadership experience. This includes supporting the creation of up to 15,000 annual volunteer service placements for young Canadians by 2023-24 and of 1,000 annual individual grants for self-directed service projects.

The investment in the Canada service corps will also address barriers to participation in service that have been identified by under-represented youth by providing new incentives and program supports co-created with young people.

Budget 2019 also proposes to improve access to mentorship, learning resources and start-up financing to help young Canadian entrepreneurs bring their business ideas to life and to market through Futurpreneur Canada.

These initiatives are just some of the many actions our government is taking to help more young Canadians get quality education and valuable experience as they build a future for themselves.

Finally, I would like to speak about the subject that is too often overlooked, and that is the mental health of young Canadians.

People aged 15 to 24 are more likely than those in other age groups to have a mood or anxiety disorder. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among people aged 15 to 24, while it ranks ninth among the general population.

Less than half of young people with depression or suicidal thoughts have sought professional help. That is why budget 2019 is proposing to invest in a new pan-Canadian suicide prevention service. This service would provide people across Canada with access to bilingual 24-7 crisis support from trained responders, using the technology of their choice. This builds on the government's previous investments in mental health supports, such as the $5 billion over 10 years to provincial and territorial governments to ensure long-term support for mental health in communities around the country.

To conclude, young Canadians are the future drivers of Canada's economic growth and are ready to be the champions of a fair, more diverse, more inclusive nation. They deserve opportunities to succeed in and benefit from Canada's growing economy. Our government's investments to make education more affordable, give young people more opportunities to find and keep good, well-paying jobs, and make home ownership more attainable will help young Canadians today and help keep our economy strong and growing for the long term.

With budget 2019, our government is investing in ways to prepare young Canadians for their future, helping them succeed for many years to come.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

moved that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-97—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I attempted to catch your eye to respond to the earlier question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope. I also would like to put on notice that I will make representations on that motion later.

At this moment, I want to support the motion we have just heard related to Bill C-97 and its status as an omnibus bill. I am still working my way through it, but it is very clear that this meets the definition of an omnibus bill. I regret so much that it has now become common to hear the words “omnibus budget bill” strung together. I did not think we would be seeing this in this Parliament. I believed the Liberal commitments to end the use of omnibus budget bills, but this one does contain sections that are quite disturbing.

As I went through the budget, it was very clear that 35 separate measures within the budget required legislative changes, so it was very clear to me that we were going to see legislative changes for things like changing the interest rates for student loans and getting action on items that we think are appropriate and long overdue. However, bundled up in all of those measures are things like division 16 of part 4 with amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are deeply disturbing, unacceptable and should never be bundled together in an omnibus fashion in a budget bill.

I will not go on at length, although I could because this is really outrageous. I do hope that we can at least split apart these sections so that the immigration committee studies this division. Otherwise, it is very clear what happens in an omnibus budget bill. Most of it will never get properly studied because it is only before the Standing Committee on Finance. It is not that there is anything wrong or delinquent or inadequate about the finance committee, but it is not the proper place to study substantial changes to other areas of law where the expertise resides with the committee, which is a standing committee, on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, in the strongest possible terms, I urge you to find this bill as omnibus and allow us to split out those sections that require proper and thorough study.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that Bill C-97 is an omnibus bill as defined under Standing Order 69.1.

My NDP colleagues and I are deeply concerned at the current government's reliance on omnibus bills to ram its priorities through in this place and to attempt to conceal measures from Canadians. We firmly believe that this practice is inherently undemocratic. Therefore, we request that you intervene.

Standing Order 69.1 states:

(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

Page 730 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

In general, an omnibus bill seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts, and is characterized by the fact that it is made up of a number of related but separate initiatives.

To render an omnibus bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes, the Speakers have previously ruled that such a bill should have “one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments”.

Given this definition, it is plainly obvious to me that Bill C-97, with over 350 pages and several stand-alone pieces of legislation, is an omnibus bill. I strongly believe that Canadians at home would agree. I would imagine they would also like us, as their representatives in this place, to properly study and debate these separate pieces of legislation as such.

However, it is clear that the Liberals are once again using the loophole they added to the Standing Orders to include many unrelated measures. That would be Standing Order 69.1(2), which states:

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

While we have had limited time to sort through this mess of a budget implementation act, we have already found several provisions contained in Bill C-97 that were not announced on March 19.

First, subdivision B of division 9 of part 4 amends the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act. Second, subdivision D of division 9 of part 4 amends the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act. Third, subdivision E of division 9 of part 4 amends the Precious Metals Making Act. Fourth, subdivision F of division 9 of part 4 amends the Textile Labelling Act. Fifth, subdivision G of division 9 of part 4 amends the Weights and Measures Act. Sixth, subdivision J of division 9 of part 4 amends the Pest Control Products Act. Seventh, subdivision K of division 9 of part 4 repeals provisions of the Quarantine Act. Eighth, subdivision L of division 9 of part 4 repeals provisions of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act.

Additionally, I am simply disheartened by the Liberal government's attempt to hide within the budget bill implementation act two pieces of stand-alone legislation that will significantly transform the Canadian immigration system.

First, in part 4, division 15, sections 292 to 302 would create the college of immigration and citizenship consultants act. As you know, this issue was studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which produced the only unanimously supported report in that committee of this Parliament. It called for urgent action and was concurred in on December 4, 2017, in this House.

The government response to that study was presented to the House in October 2017, wherein the minister stated, “The Government expects to be able to provide more information on the way forward next year.” The minister missed his own self-imposed deadline and is now forced to hide these changes within the budget implementation act. Given the significance of this stand-alone piece of legislation, my colleagues and I strongly believe that this 45-page act must be separated out of Bill C-97 so it can be debated, studied, amended and voted on as the separate legislation that it is.

Second, and even more alarming, is the Liberal government's attempt to hide its efforts to shut down the Canadian border to asylum seekers in the midst of a global refugee crisis. In part 4, division 16, clauses 302 to 311 would make dramatic changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These changes would render ineligible potentially thousands of individuals seeking asylum from even having their claims heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

There is an ongoing court case challenging the constitutionality of the safe third country agreement and it appears that the government is looking to legislate around this lawsuit, expanding the agreement to include countries that Canada has an information sharing agreement with and codifying it into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I will quote a refugee lawyer who has contacted me already on these changes. He stated, “The substance here is disappointing, but the fact that such significant change is being introduced this way, without consultation, without notice, is what's even worse. At least Harper and Jason Kenney (and this is something straight out of their kitchen) would have had the courage to stand behind this.”

This would be a grave injustice to some of the most vulnerable groups in the world and an abdication of our duty under international law to simply slide this legislation through in Bill C-97. We, as parliamentarians, have a duty to separate out this piece of legislation from Bill C-97 so that its impacts can be truly examined and debated in this place. We must have the opportunity to debate in this place whether this is truly a direction the Canadian government wants to take.

By throwing in elements that were not announced in the budget presentation and by hiding significant stand-alone legislation that would have far-reaching impacts on Canada's immigration system, I submit that the bill meets the standards set out in the Standing Orders to be treated as an omnibus bill.

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

Thanks for the intervention by my colleague. You know, committees are the masters of their domains. I've been on this committee since we were elected as a majority government. I've really enjoyed it and we are the masters of our domain. When the minister has come to speak to us, we've all asked him questions. Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Deltell and Ms. Raitt, when she was here, asked questions, tough questions. We are going to be looking at the subject matter of Bill C-97. I'm sure Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Richards and Mr. Kmiec will want to ask tough questions and they'll be afforded that opportunity.

In response to my colleague, I was going to say my friend, Mr. Poilievre, that within the three-hour time slot from 3:30 to 6:30, you've asked for the minister to keep his remarks within 10 minutes. I don't think that's something extraordinary. I think the purview is that we are speaking to Bill C-97, which touches upon fiscal policy. It touches upon a thing. It's not a huge bill, and no pun was intended by the comment, but a document that's important to Canadians and to our government. Of course, it is important to this committee to study it, to bring witnesses forth and to commence that process. I think it behooves all of us as parliamentarians to do that.

Mr. Poilievre, I'm very accommodating and I think the committee is accommodating on where members are in terms of the three hours and the 10 minutes. I think it's obviously the chair's role to decide what's in order in any committee to be discussed. If we stray too far, then I think it behooves us to point that out, and it also behooves you folks to point that out on your side. I think we can be accommodating and meet on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Was it 1993? I thought you were there.

It's a great honour for me to see you back, Wayne.

What we have before us today is a way of looking at the analysis of the recent budget, which, in our view, does not get to the bottom of things enough.

Mr. Chair, I would like to draw your attention right away to point 7 of the motion before us. Let me take the time to read it:

7. the Committee invite the Minister of Finance to appear on Bill C-97 on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that officials appear from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., if necessary;

This is an important point, but in our opinion it is not mindful of the tremendous burden on the Minister of Finance. That is why we want to extend the hours, and I will table an amendment to that effect a little later.

The Minister of Finance has an incredible burden. This person manages the finances of a G7 country. This person is at the helm of a department and must manage Canada's $330 billion or so in a budget that serves 37 million Canadians. This person must see to every detail of the proposed measures and options suggested to Canadians. Trying to limit the golden opportunity to get to the bottom of things, to ask relevant questions and, most importantly, to have answers to those questions, in our opinion, does not respect the parliamentary system, since everyone has the right to express themselves. It is above all a lack of respect for the Minister of Finance.

This is no small matter, though. When the government tables such thick documents and measures that have a direct impact on the lives of thousands of Canadians, the least we can do is to provide the time for him to explain them and answer the relevant questions. When we limit the minister's testimony to just 90 minutes, minus the 15 or 20 minutes he will take to give his presentation, unfortunately, not much time is left to discuss in detail the commitments made and the impact they can have on the lives of Canadians, on our entrepreneurs, our businesses, our families, our institutions and our partners, whether at the municipal or federal level.

In short, it is a missed opportunity to get to the bottom of things. That is basically why we are here in the House of Commons. We have the extraordinary and signal privilege of sitting on behalf of the 100,000 constituents, in general, who live in our ridings, whether they voted for us or not. We represent all Canadians in our ridings.

The appearance of the Minister of Finance before the Standing Committee on Finance is, in our view, a key moment of transparency, a key moment of accountability, a key moment in parliamentary work and a key moment also for the person who has the extraordinary privilege—deserved, let us not forget—of being at the helm of the Department of Finance. When I say “deserved,” it is simply to remind everyone that, if we have the privilege of sitting in the House, we also have related obligations, including the obligation to respect and honour the mandate entrusted to us all.

We cannot be democrats on a sliding scale, that is, we cannot be happy when victory smiles on us and not happy when we face defeat. Democracy being what it is, we respect the will of the people. Every member in the House deserves to be here.

The government party governs, and the responsibility of the leader of the Canadian government is to choose the people he considers to be best suited for ministerial roles, for the executive. I do not want to favour one over another, but everyone knows that the Department of Finance is one of the largest departments, if not the largest, in any government.

Anyone who has the opportunity, the good fortune and the great honour to sit around the executive table, whether a so-called junior minister or a so-called senior minister, enjoys an invaluable privilege that must be fully appreciated. Around the table, everyone is equal. That is, of course, what we want.

To limit the Minister of Finance's testimony to just 90 minutes is unfortunately to deny him privileged access to speak directly to Canadians, to say exactly what drives him in this budget presentation, what his policy objectives are, and also to report on his achievements.

This is the fourth budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. This minister has been in charge of the Canadian government's public finances for three and a half years, and the time has come for a review, especially since there will be a general election in just over six months. The public will then be able to make a judgment on the current government's economic record and its management of public funds. Views may differ, but the fact remains that, after four budgets and three and a half years of government management, the time has come to take stock.

That is why this presentation to the parliamentary committee gives the minister a unique opportunity to brag, which I say in a positive way. He has a unique opportunity to highlight what he considers to be his successes and to respond to any specific or even rough attack or question from opposition members.

There's nothing personal about this. Indeed, we are here because we are the official opposition, because we are Her Majesty's—in the person of the Minister of Finance in this case—loyal opposition. Let's give the minister an opportunity to respond to attacks or relevant questions from the official opposition and other opposition parties. This is a golden opportunity. I don't see why the minister, given his high responsibilities, would not have this exceptional opportunity to answer questions directly. Certainly, he may not like some of the comments, but we are giving him the opportunity to answer them.

That is the mandate of a parliamentary committee. The minister has the privilege, but above all the duty, to answer the committee's questions.

It is also important to remember that questions will come from both sides. As we just saw in the vote a few moments ago, members of the government party hold the majority around this table and they too can ask witnesses questions. In this case, the Minister of Finance is their ally and their questions should not be expected to be particularly brutal, harsh or painful. Rather, it is an opportunity for the minister to justify his or her various policies. As they say in hockey, the minister will be able to receive passes right on his stick. However, it will be up to him to decide how to handle the puck that will end up there.

We therefore believe it is important for the Minister of Finance to appear before a parliamentary committee to have an opportunity to take stock and to answer members' questions directly about his achievements and what we consider to be measures that have not contributed to economic growth.

That is why I propose the following amendment, which makes a change to the second line of point 7 of the motion. I will therefore read point 7 in its entirety with the amendment I'm proposing:

7. the Committee invite the Minister of Finance to appear on Bill C-97 on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.;

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Yes, I apologize. Point 8 does indeed say “5:00 p.m.” That's great.

Let me reread the motion from point 8, taking into account this correction, for which I thank my honourable colleague:

8. proposed amendments to Bill C-97 be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee in both official languages by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 22, 2019, at the latest;

9. the Committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-97 on Monday, May 27, 2019, at 11:00 a.m., subject to the Bill being referred to the Committee;

10. the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause; and

11. iif the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Chair, first—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The motion reads as follows:

That

1. the Committee begin a subject matter study of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, and other measures on Monday, April 29, 2019, if the Bill itself has not yet been referred to the Committee;

2. the Committee hear from departmental officials on the subject matter of Bill C-97 on Monday, April 29, 2019, from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.;

3. if Bill C-97 is referred to the Committee by the House during the subject matter study of the Bill, all evidence and documentation received in public in relation to its subject matter study of Bill C-97 be deemed received by the Committee in the context of its legislative study of Bill C-97;

4. the Clerk of the Committee write immediately to each Member of Parliament who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee, to inform them of the beginning of the subject matter study of Bill C-97 by the Committee and to invite them to start working on their proposed amendments to the Bill, which would be considered during the clause-by-clause study of the Bil;

5. Members of the Committee submit their prioritized witness lists for the study of Bill C-97 to the Clerk of the Committee by no later than noon on Thursday, April 18, 2019, and that these lists be distributed to Members that same day;

6. the Committee hear from witnesses on Bill C-97 from April 29, 2019, to May 16, 2019;

7. the Committee invite the Minister of Finance to appear on Bill C-97 on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that officials appear from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., if necessary;

8. proposed amendments to Bill C-97 be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee in both official languages by [5:00 p.m.] on Wednesday, May 22, 2019, at the latest;

9. the Committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-97 on Monday, May 27, 2019, at 11:00 a.m...

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

I believe everyone will have in front of them a motion that's been distributed. It's a motion on Bill C-97. I believe, Mr. Chair, the motion is in order.

Ways and Means

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)