Bill C-47

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) enabling the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to use electronic certification of tax and information returns and requiring taxpayers to file electronically in certain circumstances;
(b) doubling the maximum deduction for tradespeople’s tools from $500 to $1,000;
(c) providing that any gain on the disposition of a right to acquire Canadian housing property within a one-year period of its acquisition is treated as business income;
(d) excluding from a taxpayer’s income certain benefits for Canadian Forces members, veterans and their spouses or common-law partners;
(e) exempting from taxation any income earned by the Band Class Settlement Trust in accordance with section 24.05 of the Settlement Agreement entered into on January 18, 2023 relating to the attendance of day scholars at residential schools;
(f) providing an additional payment of the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) credit equal to double the amount of the regular January 2023 payment;
(g) providing for automatic, quarterly advance payments of the Canada Workers Benefit;
(h) allowing divorced and separated spouses to open joint Registered Educational Savings Plans and increasing educational assistance amounts under those plans;
(i) extending, by ‚three years, the ability of a qualifying family member to be the plan holder of an individual’s Registered Disability Savings Plan and expanding the definition of “qualifying family member” to include a sister or a brother of the individual;
(j) allowing defined contribution registered pension plans to correct contribution errors and requiring that the contributions or refunds are reported to the CRA for the purpose of correcting the RRSP deduction limit;
(k) modifying reporting requirements in respect of reportable transactions, introducing reporting requirements for notifiable transactions and providing reporting requirements with respect to uncertain tax treatments, as well as extending the reassessment periods applicable to those transactions and creating or modifying penalties for non-compliance with those requirements;
(l) allowing the CRA to share taxpayer information for the purposes of the Canadian Dental Care Plan;
(m) expanding the definition of “dividend rental arrangement” to include “specified hedging transactions” carried out in whole or in part by registered securities dealers;
(n) implementing the Model Reporting Rules for Digital Platforms developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development;
(o) requiring annual reporting by financial institutions of the fair market value of registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds;
(p) expanding the permissible borrowing by defined benefit pension plans; and
(q) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct mistakes or inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act , the Tax Rebate Discounting Act , the Air Travellers Security Charge Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Electronic Filing and Provision of Information (GST/HST) Regulations .
Part 2 implements certain measures in respect of the Excise Tax Act and a related text by
(a) clarifying that the international transportation of money benefits from Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) relief and other special rules in the same manner as a service of internationally transporting other kinds of freight;
(b) permitting a pension entity, in specific circumstances, to claim the pension entity rebate or an input tax credit, or to make the pension entity rebate election, after the end of the two-year limitation period;
(c) specifying that cryptoasset mining is generally not considered a supply for GST/HST purposes; and
(d) ensuring that payment card clearing services are excluded from the definition “financial service” under the GST/HST legislation.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act in order to implement two measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 in order to temporarily cap the inflation adjustment for excise duties on beer, spirits and wine at two per cent, for one year only, as of April 1, 2023.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to increase the air travellers security charge that is applicable to air travel that includes a chargeable emplanement after April 2024 and for which any payment is made after April 2024.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to strengthen the regime for dealing with complaints against banks and authorized foreign banks by, among other things, providing for the designation of a not-for-profit body corporate to be the sole external complaints body. It also makes consequential amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and related amendments to the Financial Consumer Protection Framework Regulations .
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to, among other things, provide for variable life benefits under a defined contribution provision of a pension plan and amends the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to, among other things, provide for variable life payments under pooled registered pension plans. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act .
Division 3 of Part 4 contains measures that are related to money laundering and to digital assets and other measures.
Subdivision A of Division 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act to report to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada information that is related to a disclosure made under the Special Economic Measures Act or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) ;
(b) strengthen the registration framework for persons or entities referred in paragraphs 5(h) and (h.1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act , which are often referred to as money services businesses;
(c) create two new offences relating to persons or entities who engage in activities for which they are not registered under that Act and the structuring of financial transactions undertaken to avoid reporting obligations under that Act, as well as a new offence relating to reprisals by employers against employees who fulfill obligations under that Act;
(d) facilitate the sharing, between the Minister of Finance, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, of information that relates to their respective mandates; and
(e) authorize the Minister of Finance to issue directives to persons and entities referred in section 5 of that Act in respect of risks relating to the financing of threats to the security of Canada.
Subdivision A also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 in relation to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act .
Subdivision B of Division 3 amends the Criminal Code to provide for a new warrant authorizing a peace officer or other person named in the warrant to search for and seize digital assets, including virtual currency, as well as to expand the list of offences on the basis of which an examination of information obtained by the Minister of National Revenue under various tax statutes may be authorized. The subdivision also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to extend the expiry date of the General Preferential Tariff and Least Developed Country Tariff to December 31, 2034 and to create a new General Preferential Tariff Plus tariff treatment that will expire on the same date. The Division also aligns direct shipment requirements for tariff treatments under that Act with those that apply to free trade agreements.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to remove Belarus and Russia from the List of Countries entitled to Most-Favoured-Nation tariff treatment.
Division 6 of Part 4 allows the Bank of Canada to apply, despite sections 27 and 27.1 of the Bank of Canada Act , any of its ascertained surplus to its retained earnings until its retained earnings are equal to zero or the ascertained surplus applied to its retained earnings is equal to the losses it incurred from the purchase of securities as part of the Government of Canada Bond Purchase Program.
Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the Canada Innovation Corporation Act . That Act continues the Canada Innovation Corporation, which was established under another Act, as a parent Crown corporation, sets out the Corporation’s purpose to maximize business investment in research and development across all sectors of the economy and in all regions of Canada to promote innovation-driven economic growth and includes transitional provisions. The Division also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew the authority to make Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing payments for another five-year period beginning on April 1, 2024 and makes a technical change to improve the accuracy of the programs. It also makes a technical change to the calculation of fiscal stabilization payments. Finally, it provides for the publication of the details of all amounts authorized to be paid under that Act.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Special Economic Measures Act , the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to strengthen Canada’s ability to take economic measures against certain persons.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act to, among other things, enable the Paris Protocol to be implemented in Canada.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Service Fees Act to, among other things, clarify the definition “fee”, exempt certain fees from the application of that Act, make certain exceptions in that Act applicable only with the approval of the President of the Treasury Board, make certain changes to the annual adjustment provisions and provide authority for the President of the Treasury Board to amend the regulations made under section 22 of that Act by taking into account the factors established by regulations.
It also amends section 25.1 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to provide for the application of sections 16 to 18 of the Service Fees Act to low-materiality fees, within the meaning of the Service Fees Act , that are fixed under section 24 or 25 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act .
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to allow the Minister of National Revenue to make available information to the Minister of Employment and Social Development that is necessary for the purpose of policy analysis, research or evaluation related to the administration of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to grant the Minister of Employment and Social Development the authority to collect and use Social Insurance Numbers for the purposes of administering or enforcing any Act, program or activity in respect of which the administration or enforcement is the responsibility of the Minister.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code in respect of leave related to the death or disappearance of a child to, among other things, increase the maximum length of that leave from 104 weeks to 156 weeks and to repeal paragraph 206.5(4)(b) of that Act.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that a claim for refugee protection made by a person inside Canada must be made in person and, with regard to a claim made by the person other than at a port of entry, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may specify the documents and information to be provided and the form and manner in which they are to be provided.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may give instructions in respect of an application to sponsor a person who applies for a visa as a Convention refugee, within the meaning of that Act, or as a person in similar circumstances.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants may seek an order authorizing it to administer the property of any licensee of the College who is not able to perform their activities as an immigration and citizenship consultant;
(b) extend immunity against proceedings for damages to directors, employees and agents and mandataries of the College, among others;
(c) authorize the College to enter into information-sharing agreements or arrangements with any entity, including federal or provincial government institutions; and
(d) expand the areas in respect of which the Governor in Council may authorize the College to make by-laws.
The Division also makes related amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that any person who is the subject of a notice of violation issued under either of those Acts has the right to request a review of the notice or the administrative monetary penalty set out in the notice.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) grant the Minister responsible for the administration and enforcement of that Act the power to collect biometric information from persons who make an application under that Act — and to use, verify, retain and disclose that information — in accordance with the regulations;
(b) authorize that Minister to administer and enforce that Act using electronic means, including by using an automated system; and
(c) grant that Minister the power to make regulations requiring persons who make an application or who provide documents, information or evidence under that Act to do so using electronic means.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Yukon Act to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs to take any measures on certain public real property that the Minister considers necessary to prevent, counteract, mitigate or remedy any adverse effect on persons, property or the environment.
Subdivision A of Division 21 of Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum liability for certain claims involving a ship of less than 300 gross tonnage;
(b) establish the maximum liability for claims involving air cushion vehicles;
(c) remove all references to the Hamburg Rules;
(d) extend the application of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 to non-seagoing vessels;
(e) provide for public notice requirements relating to the constitution of limitation funds under that Act;
(f) clarify that the owner of a ship is liable for economic loss related to fishing, hunting, trapping or harvesting suffered by an Indigenous group, community or people or suffered by a member of such a group, community or people; and
(g) expand the compensation regime of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund to include certain future losses.
Subdivision B of Division 21 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to, among other things,
(a) expand the application of Part 1 of that Act in relation to certain pleasure craft;
(b) expand the exemption powers of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans;
(c) allow the owner of a Canadian vessel to enter into an arrangement with a qualified person under which that person is the authorized representative of the vessel;
(d) give the Marine Technical Review Board jurisdiction to make decisions on applications for exemptions from interim orders;
(e) authorize the Governor in Council to incorporate by reference in certain regulations material that the Minister of Transport produces;
(f) broaden the Governor in Council’s power respecting fees, charges, costs or expenses to be paid in relation to the administration and enforcement of matters under that Act for which the Minister of Transport is responsible;
(g) increase the maximum amount of fines for certain offences;
(h) provide authority, in certain circumstances, for the Chief Registrar to refuse to issue a certificate of registry and for the Minister of Transport to refuse to issue a pleasure craft licence;
(i) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting emergency services;
(j) authorize the Minister of Transport to, among other things,
(i) direct a master or crew member to cease operations,
(ii) authorize the Deputy Minister of Transport to make interim orders in response to risks to marine safety or to the marine environment, and
(iii) direct a port authority or a person in charge of a port authority or place to authorize vessels to proceed to a place selected by the Minister; and
(k) permit designating as violations the contravention of certain provisions of Parts 5 and 10 of that Act and the regulations made under those Parts.
The Subdivision also makes a related amendment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act .
Subdivision C of Division 21 amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to, among other things, establish the Vessel Remediation Fund in the accounts of Canada and provide the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with certain powers in relation to the detention of vessels.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) allow the Governor in Council to require air carriers to publish information respecting their performance on their Internet site;
(b) permit the sharing of information to ensure the proper functioning of the national transportation system or to increase its efficiency, while ensuring the confidentiality of that information;
(c) allow the Minister of Transport to require certain persons to provide certain information to the Minister if the Minister is of the opinion that there exists an unusual and significant disruption to the effective continued operation of the national transportation system;
(d) establish a new zone in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, in which any interswitching that occurs is subject to the rate determined by the Canadian Transportation Agency, for a period of 18 months; and
(e) broaden the scope of the administrative monetary penalties scheme.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) broaden the authority of the Canadian Transportation Agency to set fees and charges to recover its costs;
(b) replace the current process for resolving air travel complaints with a more streamlined process designed to result in more timely decisions;
(c) impose a greater burden of proof on air carriers where it is presumed that compensation is payable to a complainant unless the air carrier proves the contrary;
(d) require air carriers to establish an internal process for dealing with air travel claims;
(e) modify the Agency’s regulation-making powers with respect to air carriers’ obligations towards passengers; and
(f) enhance the Agency’s enforcement powers with respect to the air transportation sector.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to, among other things,
(a) allow a person arriving in Canada to present themselves to the Canada Border Services Agency by a means of telecommunication, if that manner of presenting is made available at the customs office at which they are presenting themselves; and
(b) subject to the regulations, require that the operator of a commercial aircraft arriving in Canada ensure that baggage on board the aircraft is transported without delay to the nearest international baggage area.
The Division also makes a related amendment to the Quarantine Act .
Division 25 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to, among other things, provide that the National Research Council of Canada may procure goods and services, including goods and services relating to construction and to research-related digital and information technology. It also establishes a new Procurement Oversight Board.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Patent Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Commissioner of Patents to grant an additional term for a patent if certain conditions are met;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the number of days that is to be subtracted in determining the duration of an additional term; and
(c) authorize the Commissioner of Patents and the Federal Court to shorten the duration of an additional term if the duration as previously determined is longer than is authorized.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to extend measures regarding therapeutic products to natural health products in order to, among other things,
(a) strengthen the safety oversight of natural health products throughout their life cycle; and
(b) promote greater confidence in the oversight of natural health products by increasing transparency.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to, among other things, prohibit
(a) the sale of a cosmetic unless its safety can be established without relying on data derived from a test conducted on an animal that could cause pain, suffering or injury, whether physical or mental, to the animal, subject to certain exceptions;
(b) the conduct of a test on an animal that could cause pain, suffering or injury, whether physical or mental, to the animal if the purpose of the test is to meet a legislative requirement that relates to cosmetics; and
(c) deceptive or misleading claims, on the label of or in an advertisement for a cosmetic, with respect to testing on animals.
Division 29 of Part 4 enacts the Dental Care Measures Act .
Division 30 of Part 4 amends subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act , in response to the decision in R. v. Gorman , to limit the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail other than letters.
Division 31 of Part 4 expresses the assent of the Parliament of Canada to the issuing by His Majesty of a Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the applicable Royal Style and Titles.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to provide that the Public Sector Pension Investment Board may incorporate a subsidiary for the purpose of providing investment management services to the Canada Growth Fund Inc. It also amends the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022 to increase the amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on the requisition of the Minister of Finance for the acquisition of shares of the Canada Growth Fund Inc. and to provide that the Canada Growth Fund Inc. is not an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada.
Division 33 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things,
(a) expand the mandate of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to include the supervision of federal financial institutions in order to determine whether they have adequate policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity or security; and
(b) expand the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ powers to issue directions to, and to take control of, a federal financial institution in certain circumstances.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Winding-up and Restructuring Act .
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, lower the criminal rate of interest calculated in respect of an agreement or arrangement and to express that rate as an annual percentage rate. It also authorizes the Governor in Council, by regulation, to fix a limit on the total cost of borrowing under a payday loan agreement. Finally, it provides for transitional provisions.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend, until October 26, 2024, the increase in the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) establish an account in the accounts of Canada to be called the Environmental Economic Instruments Fund, for the purpose of administering amounts received as contributions to certain funding programs under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment; and
(b) replace references to “tradeable units” with references to “compliance units”.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency Act .
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to clarify that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation may administer any contract related to deposit insurance entered into by the Minister of Finance and to allow the Minister to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit until April 30, 2024.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to, among other things,
(a) establish the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal to hear appeals of decisions made under the Employment Insurance Act instead of the Employment Insurance Section of the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal; and
(b) eliminate the requirement for leave to appeal decisions relating to the Employment Insurance Act to the Appeal Division of the Tribunal.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 39 of Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to provide for a national, uniform, exclusive and complete regime applicable to registered parties and eligible parties respecting their collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal information.

[Steven Staples, National Director of Policy and Advocacy, Canadian Health Coalition]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chairperson and members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I also want to extend a thank you to everybody who met with our volunteers in March. I know that many of you spent very valuable minutes of your day with our volunteers. It's very much appreciated.

My name's Steve Staples. I'm the national director of policy and advocacy for the Canadian Health Coalition. We were founded in 1979 to defend and expand public medicare in Canada. We're comprised of frontline health care workers, community groups and experts.

I'm delighted to speak to you on the topic of Bill C-47. I last met you in October during pre-budget consultations.

We would like to address “Chapter 2: Investing in Public Health Care and Affordable Dental Care”.

Today, I'd like to focus on three aspects. Number one is the enforcement of the Canada Health Act and conditions for federal funding to provinces and territories. This includes reining in private, for-profit delivery of publicly insured services. Number two is the importance of universality, given the means-tested approach to the dental care program that leaves untold numbers of families behind because of their incomes. Number three is the need to extend the goal of providing public coverage of medically necessary services to include prescription medicine through public, universal pharmacare.

In October, the Canadian Health Coalition recommended that the government work with provinces and territories to increase federal funding through a Canada health transfer that's accountable, while improving outcomes for people in Canada through new public health care programs, such as dental care and also pharmacare. There's more work to do. We applaud the additional funding provided by the federal government to the tune of $198 billion over 10 years, including $46 billion in new CHT funding and $25 billion over 10 years through bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories.

Concern remains that this money could yield limited results in improved health care without conditions and accountability. It's a dirty little secret that the Canada health transfer, the money that goes from the federal government to the provinces, doesn't actually have to be spent on health care. The money flows from Ottawa into the general revenues of the provinces and territories, and they can spend the money as they like. It's a sad day when the federal budget that just came out promises to—and I'm quoting here—“Ensure that new federal investments are used in addition to provincial spending, and that provinces and territories do not divert away health care funding of their own”. How can the federal government ensure transparency that the money is actually going to be used for health care and not be diverted away, as the budget says?

The Canadian Health Coalition is very concerned that billions will be spent on publicly insured services in private, for-profit clinics—putting Canadians at risk of user fees and extra billing—and be wasted on profit-taking by inefficient private providers. Health Minister Duclos' own annual report on the Canada Health Act cited eight provinces violating the act. They withheld $82 million with respect to patient charges levied during 2020 and 2021 for medically necessary services that should be accessible to patients at no cost. We know that's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Furthermore, data uncovered by the public interest group in Quebec called IRIS revealed that the cost of a carpal tunnel surgery averaged $908 in the private sector compared to $495 in the public sector. The list goes on. A short colonoscopy costs $739 in the private sector compared to $290 in a public institution. This is our health care money, yet the federal government has been silent on this matter. In fact, remarks by the Prime Minister about Ontario's privatization plans reported widely in the media were very worrisome.

One of the principles of the Canada Health Act is universality. The budget says, “Canadians are proud of our universal publicly funded health care system. No matter how much money you make, or where you were born, or what your parents do, you will receive the care you need.” Well, we can all agree on that.

Why does this principle of universality not apply to dental care?

The Canadian Health Coalition applauds the $13 billion committed to this program, a result of unprecedented collaboration among political parties. However, there's unfinished business. What about the self-employed or the gig workers who have no benefits but might have a family income of just over $90,000? We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer how many families would be left behind. They know the number, but they won't share it with us.

Finally, we look forward to Canada's pharmacare act being passed this year, but we were disappointed to not have it acknowledged in the budget. In October, we requested $3.5 billion for essential medicines, as recommended by the 2019 government-appointed advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare and the Hoskins report, led by Dr. Eric Hoskins.

When the pharmacare act is brought forward this year, we expect it to reflect—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome, everybody. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 88 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 20, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, divisions 1 to 9, 32 to 34 and 37. I remind members that the other divisions of part 4 will be studied at a subsequent meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room with us, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Members, the witnesses we have with us today on this first panel include the Canada's Building Trades Unions. We're trying to get them set up here, because they are virtual. They are Rita Rahmati, government relations specialist, as well as Kate Walsh, the director of communications. Also coming to us virtually, and we're trying to get them hooked up, is the Canadian Health Coalition and Steven Staples, the national director of policy and advocacy.

We have Dr. Alika Lafontaine with us here in person. He is the president of the Canadian Medical Association. We also have the Comité Chômage de Montréal and Mr. Pierre Céré, who is with us. He is the spokesperson for the organization. From the Daily Bread Food Bank, with us here in the room, we have Neil Hetherington, the chief executive officer. Welcome.

I'll show a little bit of my bias here. From Mississauga and the Mississauga Food Bank—thank you for all of your hard work—we have Ms. Meghan Nicholls, who is the chief executive officer.

Meghan, I just want to congratulate you. I know you have a new facility that you have moved into or are moving into as we speak in Mississauga. I look forward to visiting as soon as you are set up and have the doors open.

I see a hand up.

Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Air Transportation

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary believes that this third approach at getting it right is going to finally work.

However, we have some grave concerns. From a passenger perspective, this is a complex approach that they have to navigate. It is not two steps. First of all, passengers have to complain to the airline about the disruption that has impacted their lives. Then, when the airline gets back to them and denies them compensation, they have to enter this mediation process, and possibly go on to a third stage of obtaining an order.

One of the things we are very concerned about is the fact that an order of these mediation processes is not considered to be a decision of the agency. Therefore, the passengers who file the complaint would not have the ability to pursue an appeal under the provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. We are very concerned that Bill C-47's air passenger rights actually reduce the ability of passengers to pursue the full compensation that they are due.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, protecting the rights of air passengers when air travel does not go as planned is a priority of our government.

Creating the air passenger protection regulations provided an important framework for travellers' rights; however, lessons learned throughout the pandemic, which began shortly after the regulations were implemented, have provided the Government of Canada with valuable information, including areas that need strengthening.

Legislative amendments to the Canada Transportation Act have been introduced to clarify and strengthen Canada's passenger rights regime while increasing air carriers' accountability and streamlining the process for administering air travel complaints by the Canadian Transportation Agency. With these changes, air carriers would be required to pay compensation to travellers unless they can demonstrate that a disruption was caused by specific allowable circumstances. These allowable circumstances would be predetermined and regulations would be established by the agency in consultation with the Minister of Transport.

Our government recognizes that changes are needed to ensure that passenger complaints are dealt with as quickly as possible. Legislative changes are being proposed to streamline the process by which dispute resolution services are provided to Canadians and to help reduce the agency's backlog of complaints.

The current process involves three steps, including time-consuming and resource-intensive adjudication. The new process is simplified with mediation and a decision, if no settlement is reached. This would ensure Canadians obtain decisions more rapidly while having their complaints thoroughly addressed.

It is important to note that the mediation process for air passenger complaints has always been confidential, since we introduced these protections in 2019, becoming the first Canadian government to enshrine the rights of air travellers in legislation. The amendments being proposed in Bill C-47 do not impose any new restrictions. While a confidentiality obligation is typical in mediation processes to allow a frank and open discussion between a complainant and an air carrier, the new process has been designed to ensure that more passengers have access to the information they may need to claim compensation.

Under the new process, the agency would be required to make public a summary of each case, including the flight number and the date, as well as the reason for the flight disruption and whether compensation was awarded, which would provide insightful information to other passengers on that same flight.

In addition, because compensation amounts are publicly available in the air carriers' terms and conditions of carriage, there is nothing to prevent the agency from publishing this information. I expect the agency to do just that.

Our government is confident that the proposed changes will improve transparency while allowing for more timely resolution of air travel complaints.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, on April 25, I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding air passenger rights, the response to which I found wholly lacking, and so I am glad I have a chance this evening to speak at greater length to this issue.

As a quick recap, the Liberals brought in their first air passenger rights framework in 2019 promising that Canada's approach was going to be one of the strongest in the world, and yet what we have seen over successive travel seasons is anything but. We have seen thousands of passengers greatly inconvenienced, sleeping on airport floors, out thousands of dollars and having their much-awaited travel plans uprooted.

Last September, the Liberals brought in further changes, again promising that this was going to make it one of the strongest in the world, and yet the complaints have piled up. Now there are over 40,000 air passenger complaints before the Canadian Transportation Agency, and we see the government going into its approach yet again and trying to finally fix what is clearly broken and not working.

The European Union has had an effective approach in place for over decade, an approach that gets passengers the compensation they deserve. However, instead of copying that approach or following my private member's bill, which is based very closely on the European approach, this minister and this government have taken a circuitous, complex and bureaucratic tack in trying to finally put in place something that protects air passengers.

I want to highlight some of the specific concerns, the first of which is the concern that I raised on April 25, which is that as part of the mediation process envisioned in Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, passengers who enter into mediation to resolve their complaints with the airlines would be forbidden from speaking about any matter that was covered as part of that mediation. This is a confidentiality clause that I do not believe any air passenger who has a grievance with an airline would want to commit to. Passengers deserve transparency, they deserve a process that is open and transparent, and so this confidentiality clause, which was the topic of my question on April 25, seems entirely misplaced in the legislation.

There are other concerns too. There has been much said about a loophole in the current approach that allows airlines to deny passengers compensation for reasons within the airline's control but on what they deem to be required for safety. Now, the minister has stated very vehemently that the legislation before us would close that loophole, and yet we see the phrase “required for safety” repeated time and time again in the legislation we are debating.

Much of the meat of this approach the minister has put off to regulations, which will not get debated in the House, and he has gone one step further. He has given the Canadian Transportation Agency the ability to establish guidelines that will set out the extent and manner in which the agency enforces the regulations, which are based on the legislation. We need accountability, and when we see an agency that is supposed to be at arm's length from this government given such great powers to determine the extent to which it upholds the spirit of the legislation, that is very concerning indeed.

We need an approach that is transparent and has air passengers' backs. We are not seeing it in this legislation, and we certainly intend to bring forward amendments that will finally get air passengers their due.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, colleagues, we're back, and I call this meeting to order.

We are resuming meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the debate on the motion of PS Beech and the amendment by MP Blaikie in relation to the study of Bill C-47.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, or English or French. For those in the room you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Again, just to focus, members, we were on a discussion of MP Blaikie's amendment. That would come at the end of the main motion, and it reads:

That the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on the bill and that this appearance be scheduled on or before May 18th, 2023.

MP Perkins last had the floor. I have MP Lawrence and MP Morantz on the list after MP Perkins.

Go ahead, MP Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was in the midst of reading a fascinating document about ministerial accountability before we entered all these procedural issues, which are about the issue of finding Freeland. I know that MP Blaikie in particular is excited to hear the remainder of the article.

Just as a reminder, because we've had some visitors in the room as well, on what I was speaking about and what it was from, it's an article by Dr. Scott Brenton, and it was published in the Australian Journal of Public Administration, volume 73, issue 4. I won't begin from the beginning again, but it's about “Ministerial Accountability for Departmental Actions Across [the] Westminster Parliamentary Democracies”. It looked at four countries in particular: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

As we know, the United Kingdom is considered the mother of all parliaments that sets all the precedents and all the rules that flow from us. We all have our individual elements that are unique to our parliamentary and Westminster systems.

I was reading the second section of this academic study on this issue. I'll just remind the members and those watching that the section was called “NPN”, which is an acronym. It was earlier in my presentation of this, but I'll spare you the search for that.

It's called “NPN: Clarifying or Complicating the Convention?”, the convention being ministerial responsibility to Parliament. I won't begin that section from the beginning, but I will go back a sentence or two so you can get the context. I was about midway through a paragraph when we entered into the last round of procedural issues on this discussion about the motion by MP Blaikie to try to ensure that the Minister of Finance, who has not responded in a positive way to a number of invitations by this committee. It is the minister's prerogative to come or not to come, and she has not responded to some of those invitations.

We're concerned that on the most important element of her job, which is the budget and the budget implementation act, the thing for which she's most accountable to Parliament—not to the Prime Minister, but to the people who Canadians elect to come here.... There is nothing more fundamental than a budget bill, which is about the spending of your tax dollars: how they're spent and what the plan of this government is going forward.

This is a record-sized budget and spending. Over the fiscal framework—that's what we call the five years of planning—and this budget and budget implementation act, it's proposed to spend $3.1 trillion: an incredible—an unfathomable—amount of money. The budget today for the government as proposed in this year is actually almost twice as large as it was in 2015 when they came to office, as are the taxes from Canadians that they are increasing. They will have gone up 96% by the end of this fiscal framework.

That's why it's so important that the minister show this record level of spending. It's essential that the minister come and be accountable to her colleagues. That's why this finding Freeland exercise of what we're embarking on is important. It's not parliamentary games or silliness. It's about the fundamental tenet. That's why these bills are called confidence motions. We get a lot of emails, all of us as members of Parliament, about wanting to see confidence motions in this government. Obviously, we feel, as do many, that we would like to see the government defeated on one of these.

Every spending bill of taxpayer money is, by Westminster parliamentary tradition, a confidence vote. That's why this is so important. In order to obtain the confidence of the House, the minister needs to be accountable to Parliament and to this committee.

On the sentence where I left off on the study, I'll just reread it before I go onto the new part. It was talking specifically about the United Kingdom.

Ministers were able to blame them—

The “them” means officials.

— for 'operational' failures as they were no longer able to issue orders of the day. In both the United Kingdom and New Zealand separation between policy and implementation was unclear in practice, while ministers were accused of interference and bureaucratic 'silos' developed.

This is about where I stopped.

It goes on to say:

Australia and Canada opted for more managerial autonomy within larger multipurpose departments and closer ministerial control but with a more informal political separation that ministers describe as an 'arm's length' distance from administrative activities. The use of 'contracts' has become politically popular, whether contracting out to the private sector, establishing purchaser-provider relationships within the public sector, or claiming that a contract exists with service users or citizens.

We know—and this is an editorial comment—that this government has made record numbers of contract-out provisions. We've had the McKinsey controversy. An excessive amount of the thinking, the policy development and idea development that officials used to make, this government has chosen to contract out to friends and, in some cases, family. “The use of 'contracts' has become politically popular”, as this says, in Canada, and that's certainly true.

While the latter two conceptions lack the legal force of a contract, all require greater specification as to day-to-day control that often shifts away from the executive, therefore supposedly increasing accountability.... Written contractual terms, specified outputs and outcomes, and agreements outlining exceptions and responsibilities in the administrative sphere have been mirrored in the political sphere with increased codification of unwritten conventions. Codification has often appeared to be a response to a series of scandals or controversies and has increased in recent years.

That's certainly true with the government. We've seen scandals increase, both ethical and others, including the failure of this government to inform a member of Parliament that his family in China was being intimidated by the Chinese government. The government won't seem to admit what date—although the briefing notes are from two years ago—it actually learned of it. I suspect that means it learned of it two years ago, did nothing, as we know, is embarrassed and, in fact, doesn't want to be held accountable for its actions, as the Minister of Public Safety or the Prime Minister did not act on one of those most fundamental parliamentary principles of accountability to Parliament in protecting the rights of members of Parliament to represent the people who sent them there without intimidation.

This report contains many tables. I won't read those tables because it's difficult to do, but it goes on to say:

Table [1] summarises the legislative and codified accountability roles and responsibilities of senior public and civil servants in relation to the convention of individual ministerial responsibility. Australia and New Zealand have some of the most extensive legislation, with the Australian Public Service's Code of Conduct also legislated.

I'll skip over the very lengthy chart they're referring to here, which goes on to the next page, as well. I'm sure members will be happy that I've moved on past reading those charts.

The United Kingdom has relied on convention more than the other countries, but the reform movement is pursuing further legislation. The next section more closely examines codification within the political sphere, which has thus far resisted and likely will continue to resist entrenchment in legislation

We know—as my colleague, MP Morantz, referred to earlier—that this current government has this document called “Open and Accountable Government” from 2015. I think it's something that the Minister of Finance should actually read. I suspect that, because finding Freeland has been so difficult, we wouldn't be facing these issues in finding Freeland if she had not only read it a few times but actually committed the spirit of it to memory.

The next section says: “Codification of Ministerial Responsibility and Accountability”. It's that issue of whether a document like this code would actually get legislated, which it has in other jurisdictions. Codification of accountability in law would make it more difficult, I believe, for this government to escape its ministerial accountability and responsibilities, which we have seen often happen. It's “Oh, well, I apologize for giving contracts to my best friend and former colleague in the Prime Minster's Office”, said the Minister of International Trade in the House. She apologized for giving her untendered contracts even though she worked on her campaign. She said she apologized, and that's all the accountability that should happen.

That's the problem, to some extent, of just having a piece of paper that's not in legislation but is just guidelines. It's not really anything I have to advise or even read, perhaps, as a minister. But what this says is various codes of conduct, guides, manuals, handbooks and legislation have attempted to codify and clarify politico-bureaucratic relationships. This codification of conventions has been relatively superficial:

in the sense that general principles have been captured in written form, but lack the legitimacy and authority of written constitutions.

That's what I was referring to a moment ago.

The most legitimate and authoritative codes are legislative.

I'm going digress again.

We know that in the legislative world we have an ethics law in Canada that tries to legislate some of this codification on ministerial accountability and behaviour. Obviously, it has no teeth when a minister can get up and say, “Oops, I ignored procurement rules and gave a contract directly to my friend. Oops, I apologized. Wait, I did it a second time. Oops, I apologize and that's okay.” That's why this lacks teeth, even if one minister did or did not read it.

Again, it says:

The most legitimate and authoritative codes are legislative, yet these tend to be the most limited in scope.

That's shocking, I think, to most people, that government would make them limited in scope. The paper says “Each of the codes do attempt to address each of the four key accountability dimensions” that this paper is outlining.

The paper goes on to remind us from the beginning of what those four accountability dimensions are. The first is “who is accountable and to whom”. The second is “for what are they accountable”. The third is “how are they accountable and by which standards”. The fourth is “why are they accountable”.

Those are four critical examinations and questions that we are facing here with MP Blaikie's motion about trying to make the Minister of Finance accountable for the budget by actually showing up to the invitation from the committee. It would be a change, because we have been trying to find Freeland in many instances, both here and in the House. It's incredible, really, to think that.

In preparation for this I actually did a count of the times since January that the Minister of Finance has been in the House to be held accountable, under minister accountability. I don't know if the government members have done this. I'm sure they've noticed that the appearances have been stark, in this effort to find Freeland. If they haven't counted them, it's not hard to do. You only need one hand: one, two, three, four, five. That's it.

You just need one hand to count the number of times the Minister of Finance has been in the House since January to be held accountable for a half-a-trillion dollar budget that she's proposing. At the end of the five years it's over half a trillion annual budget. That's $500 billion.

That's one appearance for every $100 billion that the minister is proposing.

I think that's probably inadequate from my view, and that's why this committee is so intent on trying to compel— which is really incredible—the Minister of Finance to be accountable for this budget in committee. The finding Freeland effort goes on, but apparently it takes $100 billion of spending for each appearance to get her to show.

The paper goes on to talk about Australia and codification. “After a series of scandals in the latter years of Paul Keating's labour government..”. Well there's a surprise: a labour government had a number of scandals. Paul Keating was Labour prime minister of Australia.

You know that the Labour Party is part of the Liberal international organization where all the Liberal parties get together across the world. That's not the Australian Liberal Party. The Australian Liberal Party, confusingly, is actually the conservative party in Australia. The Labour Party in Australia is the Liberal left-wing socialist government. They are the partner in Liberal International, with both the Liberal Party of Canada, which is a long way from conservative, and the Democratic Party in the U.S., which has become more socialist.

Their lead socialist spokesman is speaking this weekend at the Liberal Party of Canada's convention. They believe in and love Americans, to the point that the democratic party wants Hillary Clinton to provide them with advice on how to win elections.

It's an odd sort of thing that you would turn to Hillary Clinton on how to win elections.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Finding Freeland is what we are talking about, Mr. Chair. Specifically, we're speaking to member Blaikie's amendment that the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on or before May 18, 2023.

Why are we so concerned with having the Minister of Finance here? Well, after how the Prime Minister treated the prior minister of finance, Mr. Morneau, by completely ignoring his recommendations during the pandemic, I'm not so sure. But, here we are.

The thing is, we're trying to find Freeland because she hasn't appeared here at this committee in almost six months. During that time, we've invited her three times. She just has not come here.

On February 2, we invited Minister Freeland in the same meeting as Bank of Canada governor, Tiff Macklem, to discuss inflation. On March 7, the committee invited Freeland to appear to defend her main estimates. On April 20, the committee invited Freeland in relation to the prestudy of the budget bill. We respect that the finance minister is very busy, but she should respect the will of this committee.

I'm not the only one who feels this way, Mr. Chair. In fact, there was a document that was signed by the Prime Minister, dated November 27, 2015 and entitled “Open and Accountable Government”. I thought we could take some time to discuss this document because it sets out the Prime Minister's expectations of his ministers. I presume that his expectations of his ministers are the same today as they were on November 27, 2015.

Part III is entitled “Ministerial Relations with Parliament”. It reads:

In our system of government, Parliament is both the legislative branch and the pre-eminent institution of democratic accountability. Clear ministerial accountability to Parliament is fundamental to responsible government, and requires that Ministers provide Parliament with the information it needs to fulfill its roles of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account.

It then goes on to say, “The Prime Minister expects”—he expects—“Ministers to demonstrate respect and support for the parliamentary process.”

In particular, it says:

They should place a high priority on ensuring that Parliament and its committees are informed of departmental policy priorities, spending plans and management challenges, including by appearing before parliamentary committees whenever appropriate.

I can think of no more appropriate a time for the finance minister to appear before the finance committee than to discuss her budget. I think this is the time.

It goes on to say:

Ministers are expected to seek the views of parliamentarians and parliamentary committees on future plans and priorities, and to dedicate time to consulting and engaging their colleagues in Parliament in order to earn their support.

Under responsible government, Ministers exercise executive authority on the basis that they have the confidence of Parliament (more specifically, the House of Commons as the confidence chamber), which requires that they, and through them the officials under their management and direction, be accountable to Parliament for their actions.

Parliamentary review of spending is a key element of this accountability. The Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the principles underlying the sovereignty of Parliament in the raising and spending of public money. Revenue can only be raised and moneys spent by the government with the authority of Parliament. Ministers must be prepared to respond to questions on spending for which they are responsible, and to regular parliamentary review of departmental expenditures.

It goes on to talk about “Ministerial House Duties”, noting that “The Prime Minister expects Ministers to place a very high priority on their House duties.”

Now, I noted earlier that the Minister of Finance has only actually been in the House for five days in 2023. That's just 11% of the sitting days this year. She was in the House on January 30, February 13, March 10, April 25 and May 1. That's five days.

That doesn't seem to be the minister placing a very high priority on her House duties.

It gets a little more specific, Mr. Chair. It actually says “Daily attendance at Question Period”. I can't remember the last time I saw the finance minister, except I think a couple of days ago. I went through the dates she was in the House. Five days this year is not daily attendance, and yet this is what the Prime Minister expects of her.

It says:

Any proposed absences must be cleared with the Prime Minister's Office before other commitments are made. When a Minister is absent, a designated Minister or Parliamentary Secretary answers for him or her.

Attendance. Attendance at other specified times is required according to a mandatory schedule of House duties prepared....

I haven't seen that happen either. I have not seen the Minister of Finance in the House on House duty all year.

Ministers are personally responsible for arranging replacements if they have to be absent and for notifying the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Chief Government Whip of the arrangements.

Piloting legislation.

This is key, Mr. Chair, and it actually says:

The Prime Minister expects Ministers to pilot their own legislation through the House and to appear before parliamentary committees of both Houses...

This really gets interesting. Let me read that again. It says, “The Prime Minister expects Ministers to pilot their own legislation”—which this bill is, legislation of the finance minister—“through the House”.

Before we get to the committee part, I want to draw your attention to the fact that just a couple of days ago the government decided to shut down debate, essentially by bringing a time allocation motion to kill debate on this bill, Bill C-47.

Normally the finance minister would be in the House to defend the legislation for the required 30 minutes. That is the customary way we do things. In fact, I've never seen it done any other way in my three and a half years here, Mr. Chair, but again, they couldn't find Freeland. She didn't show up to defend her own legislation, to pilot, as the Prime Minister expects, her own legislation through the House. She wasn't there, and, you know, the associate minister, Mr. Boissonnault, wasn't there. Ironically, we would end up with Minister Wilkinson, the Minister of Natural Resources—who actually has nothing to do with piloting the budget—defending Minister Freeland in the House on her motion to shut down debate.

I'm getting concerned, Mr. Chair, about the well-being of the finance minister. I hope she's okay. I sincerely do, but she is not here. We need to see her presence to know that she is ready, willing and available to do what the Prime Minister expects of her, which is to pilot her legislation through the House. It says very specifically on page 9, “to appear before parliamentary committees of both Houses”, here and the other place, the Senate, “as required.”

The government will pursue its legislative agenda by requiring that all government Members of Parliament vote with the government on matters of confidence, which include matters of fundamental importance to the government such as the Main and Supplementary Estimates, the Budget, the implementation of electoral commitments, and matters that address shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights....

“Committee relations” is a very important section. On page 10 of the same document, it says:

Ministers are expected to ensure that policy [initiatives] and legislative issues are brought forward so as to enable meaningful discussion at—

Do you know where, Mr. Chair? This was the Prime Minister talking: “meaningful discussion [of legislative issues] at parliamentary committees.”

Ministers should also place a high priority on developing good relationships with parliamentary committee chairs and members, and supporting the essential work of the committee. This includes appearing before committees whenever appropriate.

I think we have a pretty strong case here that the minister should appear on her own budget. In fact, it's hard to imagine that we really even have to argue for it. I think the sooner she comes to this committee to answer a few questions, the better.

Page 48 of the document says:

Supporting Ministerial Accountability to Parliament

Appearances before House and Senate committees by Ministers and their officials are an essential part—

This isn't me talking. This is from a document posted on the Prime Minister's website.

It states:

Appearances before House and Senate committees by Ministers and their officials are an essential part of informing Parliament, [which enables] parliamentarians to represent the views of their constituents...and to hold the government to account for its management and policies. Ministers should promote an ongoing dialogue with parliamentary committees on their department’s policy priorities, legislative and spending issues, and management challenges. Ministers, supported by the public service, should appear regularly before their respective parliamentary committee to seek the committee’s input into policy and spending priorities, and to discuss departmental performance and results. Ministers are expected to provide, consistent with Treasury Board guidelines, informative and balanced reports to Parliament, most importantly the Estimates, the Report on Plans and Priorities, and Departmental Performance Reports. Ministers and their officials must cooperate with the committees in their work....

Let me read that last part again: “Ministers and their officials must cooperate with the committees in their work”. I have to reiterate this. We invited the minister here three times this year. On February 2 we invited her to appear with the bank governor. On March 7 we invited her to appear to defend the main estimates. She didn't come on the main estimates. That's hard to believe. The committee invited Minister Freeland in relation to the prestudy of the budget bill.

Here we have a section in the document, tabled by the Prime Minister, that “Ministers and their officials must cooperate with the committees in their work and seek the views”, and that's not happening. We have a dysfunctional situation. That's why we are so adamant that we have a motion passed by this committee that calls on the finance minister to appear before we get into the....

Now, we'd like to see, as Conservatives, that the minister appears before we get to clause-by-clause. It will be easier to consider each clause once we have the input and perspective of the minister herself and once we have the chance to ask her questions directly related to those clauses. We have no guarantee that this will happen.

The principles of ministerial accountability guide ministers and their officials appearing before parliamentary committees, including when officials appear in their capacity as accounting officers. Ministers are responsible for providing answers to Parliament on questions regarding government policies, programs and activities and for providing as much information as possible about the use of their powers, including those delegated to them by others. This is the Prime Minister talking. This isn't me. I'm just reminding the committee of the Prime Minister's views.

Now, I'm assuming that the Prime Minister feels the same way about this as he did in 2015. If he does, he should perhaps speak with the Minister of Finance at the earliest possible time to urge her to get to committee so that we can get on with the consideration of her legislation.

You know, Mr. Chair, another reason she needs to come here is that we have many important questions for her. The fiscal anchor that the Minister of Finance said she was completely committed to just one short year ago is now gone. What are fiscal anchors? Fiscal anchors are essentially a policy position of government that says we're going to do something to make sure that we are fiscally responsible. Some fiscal anchors are when government says we're going to commit to a balanced budget by a certain year. Another fiscal anchor is where a government says we may still run deficits, but we're going to make sure that the total amount of our debt as a percentage of the total value of our economy, the GDP, goes down a little bit every year so that we're not encroaching on the equity of our economy.

That's what Minister Freeland did last year. In fact, I'll quote her:

...let me be very clear: We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down.

This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross.

The sad part of all this is that I don't know how we could trust the Minister of Finance, if she came up with a new fiscal anchor this year, that she wouldn't just ignore it when it was convenient again, and next year.

We have a real credibility gap here, and that's another reason why she needs to come and explain why the debt-to-GDP ratio is going up just a year later when in fact she promised. In fact, it was not just a promise, it was a declaration of “a line we shall not cross”. She needs to come here and explain why she did that. Those were bold words. She proclaimed to the world that our debt-to-GDP ratio was her fiscal anchor, that she could and should be trusted to bring Canada's finances under control. She said that and it's not happening.

Another thing she said, not even a year ago, in the fall economic statement, was that by 2027, the budget wouldn't be balanced but would have a surplus of $4.5 billion. That's music to Conservative ears. I thought, that's okay, maybe they're actually serious now about bringing the budget to balance, being fiscally responsible, doing the right thing. But that was November. That was ancient history, according to this government. Six months is a lifetime.

I'm flipping through the budget document. By the way, so people watching can understand what we're talking about, I brought a copy of the budget bill here with me. This is it, for all the students here today. It's over 400 pages, and you know what? The Finance Minister who wrote this law won't come here to answer questions about what it's all about. That's not right. Do you folks think that's right? Anyone put up their hand if they think that's right. I don't see any hands going up from our wonderful students at the back of the room, Mr. Chair.

It's not even mostly a budget. For the most part, it's what they call an omnibus bill. It purports to amend or introduce 51 acts of Parliament. It's unbelievable. She has to come to explain why this budget isn't actually about budgeting, because what this budget is about as far as I can tell is almost anything but budgeting.

Some of these acts are the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Canada Elections Act and the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency Act. All these maybe are laudable goals, but they aren't about budgeting. They aren't about revenue. They aren't about expenses. They aren't about fiscal or economic policy. They're about all kinds of other things, so we're wondering what it is the Finance Minister is doing here. Why is she introducing amendments like this? some of the acts are the National Research Council Act, the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, the Patent Act, the Pension Benefits Standards Act. I could go on and on. I'm not going to belabour the committee with reading the names of all 51 of them.

I want to say why this important. Just a few short years ago, in a bill just like this, the finance minister of that day, Mr. Morneau, introduced a 500-page long bill that included buried in it a clause that would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to allow the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to give a free pass, a deferred prosecution agreement, to one particular company, SNC-Lavalin. That led to a major scandal. It led to the destruction of political careers. It led to the first indigenous Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Canada having to withdraw or being taken out of her portfolio.

I asked the question of the officials the other day and you might recall this, Mr. Chair. Is there any single company that benefits from any provision in this bill, this 400-page document, that we don't have the opportunity to properly scrutinize?

They said absolutely nothing. We had 50 public servants in the room and not a single one uttered a word. They would not answer my question.

We have a lot of questions for the Minister of Finance.

I am going to take a bit of a rest, although I would like you to recycle my name on the list, Mr. Chair.

I know my colleagues, who are far more eloquent than I am, are ready, willing and capable of picking up these arguments and explaining to this committee and to you, Mr. Chair, why finding Freeland is imperative to the progress of this committee, and to making sure that Canada remains a fiscally responsible country with a government that is accountable to its citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're resuming meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the debate on the motion of PS Beech on the amendment of MP Blaikie and the subamendment of MP Genuis in relation to the study of Bill C-47.

Today's meeting is taking place in the hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Of course we have PS Beech here because it's his motion.

We last left off with MP Perkins. Then I have MP Blaikie, then PS Beech and then MP Morantz on my list.

We're going to start with MP Perkins.

Motions in Amendment

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. It proposes amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999, also known as CEPA.

As members know, our government introduced Bill S-5 in the Senate on February 9, 2022. Over the past year, Bill S-5 has moved steadily through the parliamentary process. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the tremendous contribution from parliamentarians on all sides of the House, and their insight and efforts to advance and strengthen this bill.

The parliamentary process was clearly a success. The committees that worked on this bill spent nearly 50 hours studying it. They heard testimony from over 80 witnesses representing civil society, academia, industry and indigenous organizations, and received more than 100 written briefs. In the end, over 40 amendments were adopted, with the government supporting more than half of these changes. The bill is stronger as a result, and the government supports it.

It is now time to pass the bill as reported by the ENVI committee, send it back to the other place and, most importantly, ensure that the bill receives royal assent without delay so we can implement it.

Bill S-5 would be the first major overhaul of CEPA in more than a generation, as many members have pointed out. The bill would modernize CEPA in two key areas. First, it would recognize a right to a healthy environment, as provided under CEPA. Second, it would strengthen the foundation for chemicals management in Canada and enable robust protection for Canadians and their environment from the risks posed by harmful substances.

The recognition of the right to a healthy environment, as provided under this act, would be an important achievement. It would be the first time such a right has been recognized in federal legislation. Under the bill, the government would have a duty to protect that right and uphold related principles, such as environmental justice. Within two years, if it comes into force, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would be required to develop an implementation framework to set out how that right would be considered in the administration of the act.

People may ask what difference the recognition of this right would make. They should recall that CEPA provides the foundation for multiple programs aimed at preventing pollution, such as those dealing with air quality, environmental emergencies, greenhouse gases and, of course, the chemicals management program. The right would apply to the administration of the whole act.

I will take one principle: environmental justice. I have heard those words in the chamber today. It includes avoiding disproportionate harmful impacts on vulnerable populations. Examining decision making from this perspective would require a greater understanding of who is most impacted by pollution and putting some priority on addressing those situations. Because a solid understanding of the situation would be important, the bill would require the ministers to conduct research, studies or monitoring activities to support the protection of the right to a healthy environment.

Complementary to that right, the bill would confirm the government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including free, prior and informed consent. Amendments confirmed the role of indigenous knowledge in decision-making related to the protection of the environment and health, and encouraged examination of whether CEPA is implemented in a way that advances reconciliation.

Bill S-5 would also modernizes Canada's approach to chemicals management by, among other things, emphasizing protection of Canadians who are most vulnerable to harm from chemicals, encouraging the shift to safer alternatives and accounting for the reality that Canadians are exposed to chemicals from multiple sources, often referred to as cumulative effects.

Central to these amendments is the proposal to develop and implement a plan of chemicals management priorities. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Health would develop this plan in consultation with stakeholders within two years of royal assent. It would set out a multi-year integrated plan for chemical assessments, as well as supporting research and information-gathering activities. The plan would also consider factors such as vulnerable populations, cumulative effects and safer alternatives, as I have already said.

This proposal was strengthened with amendments, supported by the government, that would require the plan to include timelines and that it be reviewed every eight years following its publication. Recognizing that Canadians are exposed to multiple chemicals from many different sources, the bill broadens the scientific basis for risk assessments under CEPA to include consideration of cumulative effects and vulnerable populations. Amendments adopted at committee introduced the related concept of a vulnerable environment. The changes will help ensure that assessors consider real-world exposure scenarios.

To support the shift to safer alternatives, the bill would establish a new watch-list of chemicals of potential concern. Amendments adopted at committee clarify the process for removing chemicals from the watch-list and provide helpful guidance to industry and other chemical users. The bill would also shift the risk-management paradigm under CEPA by expanding its regulatory focus to a broader subset of toxic substances, that is toxic substances that pose the highest risk, and requiring that priority be given to prohibiting activities and releases of these toxic substances.

However, amendments adopted at committee and supported by the government make it clear that it must include toxic substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction, in addition to persistent and bioaccumulative substances, which departments have always aimed to eliminate. These important changes bring CEPA in line with the latest science and understanding of environmental and health risks.

Having summarized the key chemicals management components of the bill, I will now speak to some cross-cutting themes that came in through amendments.

Openness, transparency and accountability in environmental and health protections were major themes underlying many of the amendments made to the bill at committee. These included a preambular statement to this effect, along with various timelines and reporting requirements for the risk assessment and risk management of chemicals. These changes would increase accountability under CEPA and ensure risks to Canadians and their environment from chemicals are assessed and managed in a timely fashion.

Similarly, amendments made to the bill would create a more open and transparent regime for confidential business information by requiring that claimants justify their confidentiality requests against Access to Information Act criteria, and would require that the Minister of the Environment review and validate a statistically representative sample of confidentiality requests and report annually on the results.

Animal testing is another major theme of the amendments to the bill, with the committee adding several new provisions aimed at replacing, reducing or refining the use of vertebrate animals. Moreover, the plan of chemical management priorities discussed earlier would include a strategy to promote the development and use of methods not involving the use of vertebrate animals.

These amendments are consistent with work under way in other jurisdictions around the world, such as the U.S. and EU, and help further this government's commitment to move away from vertebrate animal testing. This includes continuing to work with industry, academia and our international partners to develop and evaluate non-animal alternative methods with the goal of moving closer to ending animal testing. In fact, the government recently reaffirmed its commitment to end cosmetics testing on animals in the 2023 federal budget, and with amendments to the Food and Drugs Act tabled in Bill C-47. These CEPA amendments would be an important complement to this work.

Lastly, on the topic of amendments, not all of the amendments that were made to the bill in the other place were maintained, but I would say majority were. There were some that were not in keeping with the principles of the act, would be difficult to implement or were premature, in light of ongoing consultations being undertaken by Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada. As I mentioned before, this is not the last chapter on CEPA.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

—the Conservatives continue to raise points of order. They have spoken for basically all of 20 hours, minus a few minutes when our members have been able to speak, and for most of those 20 hours, they've discussed nothing to do with the motion that's being debated.

Now I've raised a point that is relevant. I've not moved it. What I'm doing is procedurally correct. I'm simply giving an indication in the context of our current debate, in the context of this amendment and the subamendment, that this is our intention. I want them to know what I plan to move when they end this filibuster and allow us to go for the vote, so that we can get the BIA passed and get Canadians the supports they need that are available in the budget but won't be available if we don't get the BIA passed soon.

That won't get passed soon if the Conservatives continue their filibuster.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair. I'm making sure that members are aware of the intention here, so I'm giving notice. I'm not moving it. I wanted to give advance notice so that members can understand our intent going forward in this debate.

I believe that the current filibuster, which has seen us lose 20 hours of committee time that could have been spent hearing from witnesses, is indicative of the need to set a deadline for clause-by-clause to be completed. This amendment mirrors language from the motion we adopted during last year's BIA, following a Conservative filibuster last year.

I believe we need this deadline, because without such a deadline, we're likely to see another filibuster during our clause-by-clause review of the bill, which would result in a delay to the supports that are in the budget implementation act: things like dental care or other measures that are going to help, the affordability measures that are going to help Canadians. We would see a delay in these supports being delivered, and it would impact, of course, the rest of the committee's schedule.

I'd be curious to see where members stand on this amendment in the context of our current discussion about the subamendment and clause-by-clause, and I look forward to moving it when the Conservatives are prepared to allow a vote on the invitation for the Deputy Prime Minister to appear for two hours, which is an amendment that we support.

I have provided the text of the motion that I gave notice on to the clerk in both official languages as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I won't perhaps bore those watching with the thing. It does feel to some members as though I have been speaking for all 87 meetings of the finance committee, but it hasn't been that many.

Just to sort of summarize, for those watching, what I've been speaking about is the desire to have, under this subamendment and amendment to the main motion by Mr. Beech, what we believe to be an important discussion about ministerial accountability to Parliament. We, as the official opposition, have been requesting that the Minister of Finance come in on her Bill C-47, which is the budget implementation act. It's an omnibus bill that amends 51 acts of Canada, some of which have to do with finance and some of which don't. We've been seeking two hours for the minister to speak on a fiscal plan that was presented to Parliament, which plans to spend $3.1 trillion in the next five years.

I understand that the minister has agreed to appear—which is heartening, because we have been in search of Freeland—but will commit to only one hour instead of two. This whole discussion about ministerial accountability could be solved right now if the minister agreed to appear for two hours, which we've been unable to get confirmation of. Perhaps some of the members of the government or the chair could confirm whether we've received an update from the minister as to whether she's agreed to come for two hours as opposed to what she said in her last email, which I understand—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

We're resuming meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the debate on motion by PS Beech, the amendment by MP Blaikie and the subamendment by MP Morantz in relation to the study of Bill C-47.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. There is interpretation for those on Zoom. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For the members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I do see a hand up with MP Baker, but I do have the speaking order right now. I have MP Perkins, MP Lawrence, MP Baker and then MP Blaikie.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There were a couple of specific questions on the point of order on how King Charles III related to this bill. Let me quote from division 31.

This bill is broken up into 39 divisions, as they call them, in the act, in Bill C-47. Division 31 is on amendments to the Royal Style and Titles Act, which has to do specifically with Charles III and nothing to do with raising revenue or expending money, and it has nothing to do with borrowing, yet it's in this omnibus bill. I was speaking towards the relevance of this bill.

Perhaps it would be helpful for members if I went through all of these sections so that they understand all of the various things that are in this bill that are unrelated to financing.

If I start at the back, this bill amends the Canada Elections Act. The Canada Elections Act, last time I checked, was not part of spending, borrowing or raising revenue.

It creates a new body called the “Employment Insurance Board of Appeal”. Generally, that would be done through an act of Parliament on its own if the government wanted to seek it, remembering that this government and this Liberal Party opposed omnibus bills in the 2015 election. In fact, most of the members from the government side campaigned on that in 2015, but apparently that's here.

There are amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Again, it has nothing to do with raising or spending money.

There are changes to the Criminal Code of Canada. Perhaps it would be helpful, too, for members of the government to understand that this supposed budget bill amends the Criminal Code, which I don't believe is a factor in raising revenue, spending money or borrowing money.

It creates the “Canada Growth Fund”. I can agree with you there: A commitment of somewhere between $8 billion to $15 billion—we don't quite know yet because we haven't been able to ask any minister about this—to create the Canada growth fund is in this bill. That is definitely spending: spending without actual knowledge of what the thing will be, which is a habit of this government.

If I continue to go back, I mentioned the Royal Style and Titles Act in division 31.

You're not going to believe this, but the bill amends the Canada Post Corporation Act. I don't think the government needs to go to Parliament to raise the price of a stamp, so what could they possibly be doing in putting a change to the Canada Post act in a bill that supposedly is about the budget?

I will go on, since the question was asked by government members about the relevance to these things that are obviously not apparent even to them in terms of why they would be in an act of Parliament.

Division 28 calls for changes to the Food and Drugs Act (Cosmetics Testing on Animals). We all appreciate that, if we can, we wouldn't want animals used in cosmetics testing, but again, that should be a separate act of Parliament, not in a budget.

For those members who are confused about these issues and why anyone would want to question the minister about why these are in her bill, I can understand why government members are confused, because I don't understand why they're in a budget bill either.

Division 27, just one above that, is again on the Food and Drugs Act, but no, it's not the same thing. It's another thing on natural health products. They'll need to amend the Food and Drugs Act to tax more, which I know this government likes to do, but they're making amendments to that.

We all know that Canada is lagging the world in intellectual property in terms of patenting, seeing as China filed 350,000 patents at the world trade patent organization last year while Canada filed 32,000. We're making amendments in this bill to the Patent Act.

I should say as an aside that of China's over 300,000 patents filed worldwide, 35,000 were for artificial intelligence. I guess because the Liberals are so good at math they would know how many patents were filed by Canada last year for artificial intelligence at the world trade IP organization. Unfortunately, I don't see any Liberals across from me raising their hands and saying they have the answer. Let me help you: 12. Twelve, so the Patent Act changes here, hopefully, will get us up to maybe doubling that to 24, while China continues to put in 35,000 a year.

The National Research Council Act is amended here. Again, if the government were to provide the National Research Council with more money, it would not require a change to the National Research Council Act. It just requires a ways and means motion in the House.

Division 24 changes the Customs Act. I suppose the Customs Act might be changed in here to increase taxes. That could be a legitimate purpose.

Now, I know that all the members travel a lot and that all the members have constituents who travel a lot. We know—and it's been in the news a lot—about all the transport complaints. Liberal members might say, “There he goes again, way off topic, and why isn't he sticking to the topic of holding the minister to account for her budget bill?”

In fact, the Liberals would be wrong and I would be right, because I've actually read this. It says in division 23 that there is a new portion called “Air Travel Complaints”, and the one above it has changes to the Canada Transportation Act.

Now, we appreciate that there needs to be better rules to protect consumers on air travel, but if you really believed in this, you'd give it House time on its own for parliamentarians to question that act and make sure that the best legislation to protect consumers was available. You would not put it in a budget bill that gets closure at all stages. Members on the government side don't even know that this bill is being used for that.

Moving on to the oceans protection plan, the member asked me earlier why I would ever talk about fisheries. Well, don't get me going. With 7,000 commercial fishermen in my riding, and having defeated the fisheries minister because of her performance in fishery under this government, I could talk to you for days and days on the fishery. You might say that's not relevant to this act, but it is, and I can tell you why. Division 21 in Bill C-47 amends the oceans protection act.

I'm not even sure how many government members are aware that there's an oceans protection act, but the amendments here are to do things in the oceans protection act around the protection of certain ecosystems. As valuable as that may be, that should be a bill on its own if it's so important. This is supposedly the government that is committed and at the forefront and full of virtue signalling on the environment, and yet they have buried in a bill that amends 51 acts changes to the oceans protection plan. I would think they would want to be proud of that.

Things that swim in the ocean, such as elvers, lobster, pelagic fish.... For all you landlubbers, a pelagic fish is a fish with a fin that swims—like cod, like halibut, like hake, and like any number of fish. Shrimp, which are shellfish, swim in the ocean. Do you know what also swims in the ocean? Mammals called seals—pinnipeds. Part of the oceans protection plan is to protect the biodiversity of the oceans. When the largest predator is allowed to exponentially grow in the ocean without any kind of management plan under the oceans protection act, which is amended by this bill, you have a biodiversity imbalance.

The government talks about wanting to respect biodiversity except when it comes to pinnipeds, seals and sea lions—