Finance Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

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

You rhymed off a couple of different ways the government will be reporting. I don't think the estimates really give anything other than just a number. While numbers are helpful because they're easy to count, sometimes they don't always measure what counts to the person who's reading it, because there's more than just dollars and cents. Are those other reports tabled in Parliament?

[Nicole Giles]

The report on the Government of Canada's official development assistance, which is required under the ODAAA legislation, is tabled in Parliament every year before September 30, or if the House is not sitting during that period, within five days of the House starting to sit again.

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

I do think there has been enough public interest raised by many of the members at this table, although maybe not by all, to warrant having a report specific to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank simply because of the nature of it. I would encourage all members to support this amendment. Again, when we give delegated authority to a minister or to the Governor in Council, that goes with a tremendous amount of ability, and we should be able to ask to have reports specific to parliamentarians so that we can share with our constituencies what the government is doing with those specific expenditures and with that delegated authority.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Dusseault.

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

Thank you for the answer.

You mentioned a lot. Where exactly would we be able to find project-by-project information, how much Canadian money went to which project? Can you clarify which document you're referencing?

[Nicole Giles]

Canada's official development assistance report, the one that's tabled in Parliament as part of the ODAAA, does include project-by-project information on, for example, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the EBRD. That focus is pertaining more generally to Canada's international assistance.

All these banks also have their own annual reports, which provide very detailed information on a project-by-project basis, and that is particular to all the projects undertaken by the banks.

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

I understand the bank will issue a report saying what they finance, and I'm sure Mr. Kmiec has a lot of these reports saying which projects the banks were involved in. However, it doesn't say where Canadian money was spent. You said it's a Canadian report on project-by-project information, but you just mentioned this bank, this bank, and this bank, so it's not project-by-project reporting, from what I understand.

Is there any way we can see project by project where Canadian money was spent on the Asian infrastructure bank precisely, not on all that and international development financing, but on this issue today? Maybe you could clarify this. Do the reports the infrastructure bank will publish say which country provided money project by project?

[Nicole Giles]

The way the Asian infrastructure bank is set up for its capitalization is that the Canadian funding goes into that capitalization and then is leveraged for a series of different projects. Therefore, you're not able to say that for this $1 Canadian, 50¢ of it went to this project, and 25¢ of it went to this project, and 25¢ went to that project. It is done slightly differently in some of the other development banks where, on occasion, specific funds are set up separately from the general capitalization of the bank. In those cases, we're able to track those specific projects, but the way that most of the general capital for these development banks is set up is that there is not a Canadian portion that can be discretely tracked. It's a general capitalization.

Is there anything you wanted to expand on that, Neil?

[Neil Saravanamuttoo, Chief, Multilateral Institutions, International Finance and Development Division, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance]

Just to clarify, if Canada has a 1% shareholding, then essentially 1% of all projects would be funded with resources that were provided, for instance, by Canada. I think the key point here, as Dr. Giles has mentioned, is that we've provided share capital to the bank. The bank then takes that share capital and uses it to leverage up on international capital markets through borrowing, which it then uses to provide project financing. As has been mentioned, it's very difficult to say that our funds are used in these specific projects other than to say that with a 1% shareholding we can attribute roughly 1% to everything.

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

I gather that the answer is, no, we can't see, project by project, which ones are financed by Canadian money. That's why my amendment is so important. It will oblige the government to do the work and to find out where Canadian money was spent. I'm not sure that 1% by project is really an answer to that question. I don't think it's respectful to Canadians to just say that every project is financed 1% by Canadian money. I would be interested to see all the projects and see whether they really fit into Canadian interests when we 1% finance every single project that this bank takes up.

Your answer doesn't tell me that we will see what my amendment wants to provide to Canadians. That's why it's so important. The actual mechanism is not enough. That's why we need this one—to make sure that the Minister of Finance gets the answers that I want and that I think most Canadians would want.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I typically don't like doing hypotheticals, but with regard to the $375 million U.S., if the government in future saw an opportunity to purchase an extra portion of shares for whatever reason—let's say this Chinese-led bank decided to do that—would this reporting mechanism that Mr. Dusseault is proposing then capture future payments and provide a means for Parliament to track the money if future disbursements were made for share purchases as well?

[Nicole Giles]

Any disbursements that are made and that are funded through the international assistance envelope, which includes this AIIB shares purchase, are reported in the series of reports that we've listed and that we've spoken about. That includes the report that's tabled to Parliament every year. Any future payments or purchases would be included in that reporting.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

But this would be a separate report. If this amendment passes, which I hope it will, this would create a separate report specific to AIIB share purchases and, as Monsieur Dusseault is indicating, specific to project transfers of money. Is that your understanding of this?

[Nicole Giles]

We would report upon the purpose and the payments that were made in accordance with the language in the amendment. However, in terms of our ability to distinguish and to separate out a Canadian dollar within an AIIB project from, for example, a British dollar or an Australian dollar, whether or not that reporting requirement is there for a separate report, we're not able to distinguish out because of the way in which the bank functions, which Neil has explained in some detail. That money goes to broader bank capital. It's not dollar by dollar that we're able to track.

We will, of course, continue to report on the activities of Canadian international assistance funding, regardless of this amendment. If it's a separate report or if it's incorporated into other transparent reporting, that would, of course, cover the AIIB. But the reporting would be similar to the reporting we have for other development banks where we're not able to distinguish and track Canadian dollars separate from the projects that the bank is funding as a whole.

Again, we can't distinguish a Canadian dollar from an Australian or British dollar in these cases with these banks. That's also how it works for the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asia Development Bank, and the EBRD.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Does that conclude the discussion on NDP-2?

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

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 176 agreed to on division)

There are no amendments from clauses 177 to 196, which include division 3, division 4, division 5, division 6, and part of division 7.

(Clauses 177 to 196 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 197)

Mr. Dusseault on amendment NDP-3.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let us move on then. This pertains to the many changes to the Canada Labour Code.

This amendment, the first that relates to this part of the act, would replace the words “24 hours” with the words “seven days”, on line 5, page 252.

The bill stipulates here that the employee must be given at least 24 hours' notice of changes to their shift. A number of witnesses have stated, based on the real family and personal experiences of Canadians today, that 24 hours is very little notice. In our opinion, it is not reasonable to inform those individuals that they have to work or do overtime the next day, with less than 24 hours' notice. In the first part of my amendment, it is proposed that seven days' notice be required to change shifts. I think that is reasonable. Further, that is what the witnesses who appeared before the committee told us.

As to points b) and c) of my amendment, I propose that the same lines be deleted, that is, lines 22 and 23 on page 252, and lines 26 and 27 on page 254. I am referring to the French version of the bill of course. This is to prevent the employer from using excuses regarding the refusal of a work shift. In both cases, the wording is the same: “threat of serious interference with the ordinary working of the employer's industrial establishment.” To our mind, in the NDP, and to the witnesses who appeared before the committee, the employer's right to refuse is too broad. The employer could simply claim that it would interfere with the working of the establishment.

What does “threat of serious interference with the ordinary working of the employer's industrial establishment” mean?

If an employee refuses a shift, any employer can say that it threatens the operation of their plant or workplace. The scope is too broad. In both cases, we retain the two other possible reasons, those in points a) and b), but we remove the reason in point c).

I would like my colleagues' support on this to ensure that these new rights in the Canada Labour Code do indeed become a reality. If we allow employers to use reasons that are so vague and broad in scope, they will be approved since they comply fully with the act. The new provisions would therefore essentially be useless, and requests from employees who are unable to assert their rights will always be refused.

I hope my colleagues will support the amendments I would like to make to these three provisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're dealing with part 5, division 8.

Are there any officials in the room who want to come to the table for questions on the Canada Labour Code? No. Thank you for that.

We have a vote in about 25 minutes. Do we have agreement to go until about 11 o'clock?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, we have agreement to do that.

Mr. Albas.

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

Mr. Chair, while I've been very supportive of Mr. Dusseault today, I would like to ask a few questions because I'm not sure of the entire effect of his amendments. Could I ask officials to break down the amendment the NDP have proposed, proposal by proposal, and what that would mean?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I assume you have the copy of the amendment.

Ms. Hill.

[Margaret Hill, Senior Director, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Unfortunately, we couldn't hear the question.