Finance Committee on May 15th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 36 of the Standing Committee on Finance. I ask colleagues and guests to take their seats, please.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, our committee is looking at Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Colleagues, we have two panels here this afternoon. In our first panel we have Christopher Worswick, a professor from Carleton University. From the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, we have Martin Lavoie. From the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, we have Matthew McGuire. From the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation, we have Fred Webber, president and CEO; and from the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, we have retired Chief Warrant Officer Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman.

Welcome to the committee. Each of you will have maximum five minutes for an opening statement, and then we'll have questions from members.

We will begin with Professor Worswick, please.

[Professor Christopher Worswick, Professor, Department of Economics, Carleton University, As an Individual]

Thank you for the invitation to appear. I probably don't need the full five minutes, but I'll make a few comments on the proposed changes, and I'll be happy to follow up during the question-and-answer period with more detail.

I'd like to start by talking about the regulations regarding the establishment of a system of administrative monetary penalties for the contravention of conditions applicable to employers hiring foreign workers. I see this as a very good change. As everyone knows from the media coverage, there is a lot of concern about potential abuses by some employers. I think it may well just be a very small minority of employers.

The concern I have, which others share, is that temporary foreign workers often value the jobs they're receiving in Canada a great deal. It may be that the incomes they're earning are significantly higher than what they would get in their home country. That creates a sort of power imbalance in that some employers may see this and realize they have the potential to extract some concessions from the original contractual arrangement.

How could that happen in practice? Well, we've seen examples of alleged cases of this in the news, but the kind of thing you could imagine is forcing temporary foreign workers to work unpaid hours, perhaps receiving an effectively lower wage than what they were promised, or perhaps forcing them to live in and pay for rental accommodation at above market rates.

In general, I'm supportive of temporary foreign worker programs. I think they work better at the more highly skilled end of the job distribution. I'm less supportive of them for low-wage jobs.

If we are going to do it, we have to be realistic that there are enforcement problems. Maybe it's only 1% or 2% of employers. It's hard to know, but I think we need a mechanism to punish employers who do this, and this seems like a move in the right direction.

My other comment is on the movement towards electronic filing of applications. I certainly support the government's movement in that direction. On the immigration front, as a country we've suffered when trying to attract highly skilled workers because of the long waiting periods that immigrants have often faced. So I think this is a movement in the right direction. It does improve our competitive position sort of vis-à-vis the other major immigrant-receiving countries, like Australia and New Zealand, which have had faster processing times.

In terms of the termination of certain applications for permanent residence, with respect to a decision as to whether or not the selection criteria are met not being made before February 11, 2014, I'm generally supportive of measures that speed up the processing of applications. I see this as part of the government's approach in this area.

With regard to the investor entrepreneurial programs, I'm generally not supportive of this type of selection. I probably should have said this at the beginning, but my background is as an academic economist. I do research primarily on immigrant selection and to a lesser extent on temporary foreign workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute remaining.

[Prof. Christopher Worswick]

Okay.

The empirical evidence really doesn't support investor-class or entrepreneurial-class immigrants being as successful as, for example, the skilled-worker immigrants.

Let me just sum up by saying that in general I think this movement towards an expression-of-interest regime is a good one. I think it will be beneficial. I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Lavoie, you have the floor.

[Martin Lavoie, Director, Manufacturing Competitiveness and Innovation Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I congratulate all the Boston Bruins fans for shaving their beards today. I still have mine.

I will start my remarks in French and finish them in English.

The situation of the manufacturing sector started to improve in 2010, after the great recession. Some macroeconomic indicators are announcing better days. Since 2011, the rate of plant capacity use has gone over 80%, which leads us to believe that capital and manufacturing expenditures will go up as the U.S. market picks up and companies will be faced with production capacity issues.

Investments in machinery and equipment are an indicator of productivity. In 2013, they were at their highest level since the recession, meaning at $14.3 billion. This fine performance is attributable in part to the federal government’s accelerated capital cost allowance. We feel that it is important for the federal government to keep a high accelerated capital cost allowance rate for machinery expenditures in order to facilitate investment and productivity gains.

The manufacturing sector currently has 1.73 million employees, whereas, in 2007, there were 2 million.

In 2013, exports almost reached their level prior to the recession. They are at $39.3 billion in goods, which is an increase of 34% since the 2009 low point.

However, research and development expenditures are a little more worrisome. Given the budget cuts to the scientific research and experimental development program, that was somewhat predictable.

Last year, research and development expenditures were close to their historic low of 2010, with a drop from 2011 and 2012. In my view, this performance is not likely to improve in the short term, given the elimination of capital expenditures in 2014 and the reduction from 20% to 15% of the research and development tax credit for large businesses from the federal government.

There are three areas in or related to Bill C-31 that are of particular concern for members. One is to keep supporting the companies that are facing labour and skills-shortage issues. While we agree that there should be no tolerance for abuse under the temporary foreign workers program, our members are concerned with the current uncertainty of the program.

We get calls from members asking, “Am I still okay buying this next piece of equipment if I need to bring those foreign workers here to set it up and to get some training?” There are a lot of questions. Not all of them are necessarily touched by the current situation with the program, but there is uncertainty.

Our member survey indicated that, year after year, more than 50% of our members are facing skills and labour shortages, and most of them think the situation will get worse in the future. One of our recommendations is to really make sure that we keep a foreign skilled workers program specifically for the advanced manufacturing sector.

The second area of concern is with division 3 of part 6 of the bill, which amends the Hazardous Products Act to implement the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals. CME supports the benefits of harmonization of safety data sheets and labels on products used in the workplace. Canada, however, must make sure that all labelling requirements are fully harmonized with those in the U.S., so that companies do not have unnecessary costs related to relabelling products if there is a lack of harmonization.

We also think that importers of chemical products should be able to label their products here in Canada without the obligation to label them in the country of origin prior to their importation, as is currently required in the legislation.

I would like to say a few words on the Canadian International Trade Tribunal as well. Our members' competitiveness relies on high-quality assistance from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to make sure that their competitors compete according to the rules. Division 29 of part 6 is proposing to remove the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's budget, research staff, and registry and to consolidate these into the administrative tribunals support service of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[Martin Lavoie]

The CITT, according to our members, is the most efficient and leanest of operations. We believe the proposed changes will weaken the CITT's administrative and analytical capacity and have potentially negative repercussions on our international trade obligations at large.

We recommend that the government remove the Canadian International Trade Tribunal from the list of tribunals covered by Bill C-31.

Thank you again, and I look forward to receiving your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. McGuire, please.

[Matthew McGuire, Chair, Anti-Money Laundering Committee, Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada]

Thank you very much.

My name is Matthew McGuire, and I am the chair of the anti-money-laundering committee of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. I'm a CPA, a member of the Department of Finance's public-private advisory committee on AML and ATF, and a partner and the national anti-money-laundering practice leader at MNP LLP.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act proposed by Bill C-31. My comments today focus on the issues relevant to accountants and accounting firms arising from the proposed amendments and certain areas where there are amendments that we hope to see.

The Financial Action Task Force, of which Canada is a member, released its updated recommendations in February 2012. We're concerned that the proposed amendments would not completely align the PCMLTFA with the expectations of accountants and accounting firms articulated in those recommendations. In particular, FATF recommendation 22 sets an expectation that anti-money-laundering obligations for accountants should be triggered when they prepare for or carry out transactions for their clients concerning the following activities that we believe should be covered: the organization of contributions for the creation, operation, or management of companies; and the creation, operation, or management of legal persons or arrangements.

One of the greatest challenges in complying with the anti-money-laundering legislation is the determination of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in the case of a suspicious transaction report for money laundering or terrorist financing. Reporting entities need information to confirm whether their basis for suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing is valid in order to develop meaningful processes for risk and transaction monitoring following the submission of those reports. The amendment in the bill that provides FINTRAC the ability to make public their involvement in cases where they make disclosures and there was a prosecution is laudable, but we think it could be expanded to make public any details of suspicious transactions and the indicators that supported the disclosure and their characteristics, of course without identifying the person who submitted it. That intelligence would surely help reporting entities, from accountants to banks to credit unions, improve their monitoring and reporting practices.

We are also concerned about proposed section 68.1 of Bill C-31. It would permit FINTRAC to file with the court suspicious transaction reports and other voluntary reports in the case of any action, suit, or legal proceedings brought or taken under the PCMLTFA. We submit that in the case of such filings, the details about the reporting entity—the folks who submitted the report—should be sealed so as to not discourage suspicious transaction reporting volumes and quality for fear of public scrutiny of those reports.

We'd also like clarity on the ministerial countermeasures with regard to the regulations that support those countermeasures. The full range of possible countermeasures is not known; therefore, we're concerned about the practical extent to which our members will be able to design systems and processes quickly to adhere to them, and the agility they require in that respect. We would ask that any regulation supporting these measures would provide sufficient lead time for compliance with the directives.

Common among reporting entity sectors, from banks to real estate brokers to dealers in precious metals and stones, is a frustration with identification standards, particularly in cases where the client does not present themselves physically for identification. Altogether, the program of client identification is not proportionate to risk, is burdensome compared with the regimes in other countries, and doesn't appear to be addressed in this bill. We understand, however, that the Department of Finance is addressing it in the course of regulations. We fully support a move towards a more practical and risk-based approach to knowing who we're dealing with.

In closing, we'd like to outline some of the changes we'd like to see as time moves on. Under the current regulations of the act, an “accountant” means a chartered accountant, a certified general accountant, or a certified management accountant. When the unification of the profession is complete across the provinces, we would like the act to reflect that renaming as well as the change from the CICA handbook to the CPA Canada handbook.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute left.

[Matthew McGuire]

Additionally, we suggest that there are those in the accounting profession, who practise the accounting profession, who are not provincially regulated, such as those with foreign accreditations. We believe they should be subject to the act to address the money-laundering risks they pose as well.

We appreciate your consideration of the issues we've identified today in the course of your review of Bill C-31. We'd be delighted to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

We'll now hear from Mr. Webber, please.

[Fred Webber, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation]

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the House Standing Committee on Finance to speak to the amendment to the Safe Food for Canadians Act that will authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations related to fresh fruits and vegetables, specifically the requirement to be a member of a specified entity or organization. This amendment would also repeal the Board of Arbitration.

My name is Fred Webber. I'm the president and CEO of the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation, commonly known as the DRC. I'm here representing the industry in support of both of these items.

The highly perishable nature of fruits and vegetables makes commerce in these commodities unique. It is a credit to the industry that they can move to Canadian consumers a product whose shelf life is measured in days, once harvested, while they're still fresh and with maximum nutritional benefit. Because the product deteriorates quickly, and supplies and quality can vary widely, licensing standards and specialized dispute resolutions have long been part of the fresh fruit and vegetable business.

The sector contributes $10 billion in economic activity to the Canadian economy, and provides direct employment to 90,000 people. Because of Canada's climate and resulting short growing season, we must import much of our fruit and vegetable needs. You'll not find many bananas and oranges growing here, particularly in February.

A dispute settlement body that maintains a common set of trading standards helps makes each party's rights and responsibilities clear and provides a forum for fair and ethical trading. In that light, a bit of history would be helpful here.

From 1934 to 1974 the Canadian Board of Arbitration administered the licensing and dispute resolution program for shippers and receivers of fresh fruits and vegetables. In 1974 that board's statutory authority to provide rulings over disputes was challenged in court and proven illegitimate. In 1983 the Canada Agricultural Products Act was amended to partially reinstate the authority of the board of arbitration and strengthen licensing requirements. The board still remained unable to rule on contract law disputes pertaining to non-payment and commercial contracts.

This situation also created an imbalance with Canada's trading partners, particularly the United States, who allows Canadian sellers to utilize and benefit from the licensing and dispute resolution provided under the USDA's Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. In the world, only Canadian shippers from Canada do not have to post a bond or other form of security to do so. Preserving this relationship was important to both Canadian and American business. A dedicated group of government and industry stakeholders organized a committee under the authority of article 707 of NAFTA, which provides for the private resolution of commercial disputes.

The organization that I represent is the result of those NAFTA organization negotiations. We're a not-for-profit corporation based in Ottawa. We provide education, trading standards, mediation, and binding arbitration to members. The DRC model is the model that government and industry have evaluated and studied as the type of entity to provide the services contemplated under the pending Safe Food for Canadians Act regulation specific to trade in fresh fruits and vegetables.

In 2000 the Canadian government recognized that the DRC met or exceeded the requirements of the Canadian federal produce licence and arbitration system, and amended the regulations to state that DRC members were exempt from the federal licence. Today over 90% of Canadian buyers have opted for that DRC membership.

For the last 14 years since the inception of the DRC, the vast majority of produce transactions have in fact been transacted utilizing the DRC membership rules and trading standards. There has been no use of the Canadian Board of Arbitration because the disputes are handled to conclusion by the DRC.

In 2011 the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council committed to establishing comparable approaches to achieve a common goal of protecting Canadian and U.S. fruit and vegetable suppliers from buyers who default on their payment obligations. A portion of this initiative was the strengthening and streamlining of the licensing system and dispute resolution system in Canada. The DRC model was again identified as the potential solution for the licensing and dispute resolution process by stakeholders from both the U.S. and Canada.

The work of the RCC in this area flowed into the portion of the Safe Food for Canadians Act that we are discussing today. The DRC and its model for dispute resolution were identified and supported as the vehicle that Canada would support based on the results of the exhaustive CFIA consultation that concluded in November of 2013. This is not a surprise, as the vast majority of the industry had already adopted the DRC into their business plans.

Even though we established an effective system for licensing and dispute resolution during the course of normal business transactions, one area where we are lacking and where we are out of sync with the U.S. is in the protection for suppliers in the event of a buyer bankruptcy or insolvency. This remains an outstanding issue for us, and we continue working with our partners in the RCC process. We are now looking at amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in order to help us create a deemed trust, similar to what exists in the United States, to give suppliers of perishable fruits and vegetables a limited priority to access the funds generated from the sales of their products.

Both of these amendments are the result of a wonderful collaboration between civil servants and government and industry. These amendments have been discussed at great length, and there's been great support for both of them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Parent, you now have the floor.

[Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

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

Thank you for inviting me to appear before this committee to share with you my views on division 1 of part 6 of Bill C-31, entitled Payments—Veterans Affairs.

I also wish to take this opportunity to briefly explain why Veterans Affairs Canada needs to take other measures to improve the support provided to injured or ill veterans and families under the new Veterans Charter. Bill C-31 will provide many veterans, survivors, or dependent children with additional financial support as a result of government's decision to cease the offsetting of the Pension Act disability pension from other financial benefits, such as the earnings loss benefit, Canadian Forces income supplement, and war veterans allowance. The one-time payment for those benefits will provide retroactive compensation to cover the timeframe from the date the decision was made to cease the practice of offsetting to the date that Veterans Affairs Canada implemented the decision.

Numerous veterans have called my office to complain that the short periods of retroactivity are not fair. They argue that the Federal Court settlement under the Manuge v. Canada case provides retroactivity back to 1976 for the Canadian Forces service income security insurance plan, known as SISIP. Consequently, they believe the retroactivity for the affected Veterans Affairs Canada programs should be provided to the date the programs came into force.

SISIP clients are receiving retroactivity going back to the start of the program, because in the context of an insurance contract, the offsetting of the disability pension as income was unlawful. However, Veterans Affairs Canada was operating within the full context of the legislation. When confronted with a new understanding of the disability pension, a policy change was made to amend the regulation to eliminate the harsh effect that this policy was having on veterans.

From an ombudsman's perspective, there is nothing unfair about what has occurred. Although both situations appear to be similar, they are structurally quite different.

I do not believe that this is a matter of fairness. The reality is that the Federal Court decision did not specifically compel the government to change the way it offset the disability pension from Veterans Affairs Canada benefits. But the government made the change anyway. There was also no obligation for the government to provide retroactivity—but it did. This ensures that veterans are not penalized because of the length of time it took to implement the new policy.

I believe that government is treating veterans and their families equitably on a go forward basis by harmonizing how Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces deal with the offsetting of the disability pension from respective financial benefits.

Let's quickly look at other issues in relation to the new Veterans Charter. The most pressing shortcomings to address, and the main source of discontent amongst veterans, are those related to financial support. Adequate financial support is a key enabler to many intended veteran outcomes, such as successful transition to a new civilian career, reasonable standard of living and quality of life, and improved physical and mental health.

There are five main issues with the financial support provided under the new Veterans Charter: first, the insufficiency of the economic financial support provided after age 65 to at-risk totally and permanently incapacitated veterans; second, the drop in income for veterans who are transitioning from a military to a civilian career, as the earnings loss benefit pays only 75% of their pre-release salary; third, the accessibility to the permanent impairment allowance and the permanent impairment allowance supplement, which is a problem for many severely impaired veterans; fourth, the unfair practice of providing a reduced earnings loss benefit to part-time reservists who suffer an injury or illness related to service; and fifth, the non-economic benefit designed to compensate for pain and suffering, the disability award. This benefit is supposed to have kept pace with civilian court awards for pain and suffering, but it has not.

The shortcomings that have been presented to government through my reports and by the many witnesses who have appeared before the House of Commons and Senate committees on veterans affairs over the past several months are impediments to achieving the charter's core objective.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[Guy Parent]

With a few focused improvements, the new Veterans Charter could become a system of benefits and programs that has a tangible and positive impact on all veterans and their families, a system that veterans can be proud of rather than the object of unabated discontent.

In closing, I have a simple vision of what the new Veterans Charter should be: a well-integrated system of programs that provides the transitioning veteran with optimism for the future and for the new opportunities available to him or her. In other words, veterans should be able to look forward to the future with enthusiasm and with a sense of purpose rather than feeling overwhelmed with the present, and longing for a past that is no longer possible. To create this optimism for all veterans, substantive improvements need to be made to the new Veterans Charter, and in particular to financial support programs. Government has the opportunity to make a real difference for veterans and families by resolving long-standing problems with the new Veterans Charter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll begin members' questions with Mr. Cullen. We can do seven-minute rounds for the first four, if that's acceptable.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

As long as I'm in the first four, then I'm very enthusiastic about your proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, you're the first one.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today.

As you can see just by your colleagues at the table, this is an incredibly diverse piece of legislation. The five of you would not normally appear before a House of Commons committee together, because we are going right through the gamut here from veterans' issues to the temporary foreign worker program to manufacturing to food. The challenges we have with the process you are now involved in are with the massive and complex nature of this legislation in an omnibus bill.

The challenge we'll have here today—and I won't take up any more time on this—is that in order to understand what the implications are, committee members from all sides of the House, I would say, are somewhat incapable of anticipating what the impacts are going to be for everything from temporary foreign workers all the way through to our veterans. We'll try, but I remove any expectation that the House of Commons is doing a thorough job. That's not possible. We also exist under time limitations.

Mr. Worswick, I want to start with you. Much has been made of the temporary foreign worker program and the potential abuses, as you talked about. We do see these things probably by a minority of employers who are abusing the system, and I mean that in both ways. One is gaming the system to replace Canadians with temporary foreign workers, because, for various reasons, they prefer having temporary foreign workers to giving a job to Canadians. The second side of abuse is abusing the workers themselves. There seem to be opportunities, given the way the program is drawn up right now, for temporary foreign workers to be abused by unscrupulous employers, whatever the number.

Can you offer a fix on the first part that would prevent employers from gaming the system? We saw that with HD Mining, and we have seen it with a number of examples that have made the news. As the current program is designed, it just seems too easy to simply make an “effort” to find a Canadian—not really try—and then simply bring in temporary foreign workers, which was the intention of the employer from the start.

[Prof. Christopher Worswick]

Sure. I can try to address that issue. I think it's a difficult problem. I'll start off by saying I don't think there's an easy solution. The easiest solution is to just not have the program, but I think there are some benefits to the program.

I did a piece for IRPP in Montreal last year, in which I looked at some of these issues. I think we need to try to make it a program that's attractive to employers who get a really large benefit from bringing in a temporary foreign worker and not very attractive for those who get only a small benefit under the terms of the arrangement. So maybe some kind of sliding fee structure might create that kind of incentive. If you're a repeat user of the program, something like sort of an experience-rating structure, such as they have with EI, could work.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Let's talk about the second side, and then I want to move on to another topic. In terms of punishing bad employers, the Conservatives two years ago, as you know, announced a blacklist for employers who abuse the system. In two years, no one was put on the list up until a month ago, and I think a couple of McDonald's franchises, a couple of employers, were thrown on when this really started to hit the news. It was maybe coincidence, but I suggest not.

Is there some mechanism that could be better used for those few employers who do abuse the system—who abuse temporary foreign workers, in fact—which would prevent this from happening more in the future, rather than having some pretend blacklist or bad employers list that doesn't get used?

[Prof. Christopher Worswick]

Without commenting on the past, I think in principle the decision last year to begin excluding employers was a good move, and I think financial penalties are another way to go. But obviously, it only works if it is fully implemented. I think that can work. I think employers will respond to those types of incentives, and I agree with what you said. I think this is a very small minority of employers in practice.