Finance Committee on Nov. 6th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Julian, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Morneau.

I just came from a Speaker's ruling in the House of Commons where the Speaker agreed with my contention that this massive omnibus legislation was an omnibus bill and needed to be divided for the purposes of voting.

This really flies in the face of the commitments made by the Prime Minister in the last election campaign when he said that omnibus legislation of this type was undemocratic and didn't allow for proper examination, and he promised to end the practice.

To start, I wanted to make the comment that the idea that omnibus legislation is acceptable is simply wrong. The fact that the Speaker has agreed and is dividing the bill for the purposes of votes indicates that there is far too much dumped in this one piece of legislation for proper scrutiny. We've only had a few hours of parliamentary witnesses, and so far they have indicated grave concerns with the pay equity provisions, which you commented on in your initial statement.

The pay equity provisions are unconstitutional, according to pay equity advocates. They offer less protection for women who are in precarious work situations such as part-time or temporary work. They are advocating for immediate amendment so that the botched job that is the pay equity legislation within this massive budget bill can be addressed.

My question is very simple. Why weren't the pay equity advocates heeded when they raised concerns about this bill? Why has the government refused to incorporate what are deep considerations about the flaws in the bill so that the bill can do what it purports to do?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Thank you for that question.

I guess there were two separate things brought up during the course of that comment and question. In the first instance, we did make a commitment that we would put forth budget implementation acts that only contained measures that were in our budget or in budgets. That approach, which we committed to taking, has been followed. That has been followed, including in this particular example of budget implementation act, no. 2. I recognize the Speaker's decision that this budget implementation act will be split into three from a vote standpoint, and I respect his decision. We look forward to that process.

We will continue to move forward with our ambitious agenda to ensure that we bring our economy to a place that will help middle-class Canadians and prepare us for the future.

With respect to the approach of pay equity, we brought forward this approach after extensive consultations and deliberation. We think it's critically important that we move forward with this legislation, which will, of course, put proactive pay equity legislation in place in the federally regulated sector that will have an impact, as mentioned in my speech, on up to 1.2 million people. We think it's high time to move forward with this, and the approach, we know, will have an important impact on women today and for future generations of women.

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

The point is that we have pay equity advocates who are now saying that this bill, as it is currently worded, provides less protection than what currently exists, and that women will have to go back to court to fight for their rights again, which means that it's a government betrayal of the commitments made around pay equity.

I think it is important to stress that these are numerous voices in the scant few hours of testimony that we've had so far, and because the government is invoking a bulldozer trying to ram this through, the fact that there are deep flaws in the legislation, I would hope, would give the government pause to step back and not ram through the legislation but actually work with pay equity advocates, with civil society and with opposition members so that we can get it right. I'll come back to that in a moment, because not getting it right means prolonging the crisis that exists in inequality in this country.

Another component of Bill C-86 is the parental leave provisions. We heard this morning that now one third of all families that should most benefit from the benefits that were put into the budget bill will not receive them because the criteria that are set up around the parental leave benefits don't allow them to access them. Are you concerned by the fact that the poorest families can't receive the parental leave benefits in the bill, and will you seek to address that and make changes to the bill so that they can be included?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Both in this measure and on an ongoing basis, our government has been very focused on how we can ensure that all Canadians have access to the programs we put in place. That's critically important for the parental leave benefit. We know it's an approach we've taken that's going to make an enormous difference, and it's especially clear that it will make a difference on long-term workforce participation among women, as a similar measure has had that impact in Quebec.

We've taken other measures that demonstrate our keen interest in ensuring that all Canadians can have access to benefits they should have access to. In this budget implementation act, with respect to the Canada workers benefit, we've made it so that workers automatically get access to that benefit and don't do it on demand. It was presenting a challenge for access to that benefit.

We have demonstrated our continuing focus on this issue. We believe that the parental leave approach we've taken in this budget will have a big positive impact on women and on families, so we're very pleased with where we've gotten to.

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

I haven't heard you address anywhere the flaws in the bill, and a willingness to actually work with other people so that we can address the flaws.

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We've gone through extensive deliberations and consultations to get to an approach that we think will have an important and very material impact on workforce participation, and on better outcomes for women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, both.

Ms. Rudd, we're still on seven-minute rounds.

[Kim Rudd, Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.]

Thank you.

Thank you for coming, Minister.

I was reading both the budget bill and the BIA. As I was looking through it, I recognized a number of things there that I had brought to your attention, and I know other members had as well, which we had heard from our constituents about recommendations to address some of their challenges. I appreciate that we were listened to, and that the suggestions were implemented as a recognition of the reality of our constituents in our ridings.

I want to talk about a particular element within the BIA. Just to give you a little background, my riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South is a rural riding. I know you know where it is. There is an interesting statistic: Over 40% of my constituents are over the age of 55, so things that impact seniors are very relevant to my riding.

We've done a number of things that certainly have been beneficial, such as the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for the most vulnerable single seniors, and programs such as new horizons. While those programs aren't huge amounts of money, in rural ridings particularly, they make a big difference. They have made a big difference in my riding.

One of the other things in the BIA that I want to talk about particularly is the strengthening and creation of a more robust banking consumer protection framework under the auspices of FCAC, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. This is important for all Canadians, but particularly Canadian seniors as well.

Could you talk a bit about what measures have been undertaken so far, and where you see them having an impact, particularly for seniors, but certainly for Canadians writ large?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

First of all, thank you for the question.

I think what you're identifying for seniors and for all citizens in your riding—and, for that matter, across the country—is the importance of having appropriate consumer protections, especially in the banking sector, given that for many people that is a difficult system to navigate. People, especially people who are not familiar with it, can find themselves vulnerable.

For that reason, we wanted to increase the protections from the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and have been working on this, as you know, for a while. As part of it, we were clear that we wanted to recognize that we weren't asserting federal primacy in this area and that there were other jurisdictional issues we needed to respect, but that it was critically important for us to get at this in a way that has a long-term impact.

We do think, again, specifically for seniors, that this is an issue we need to stay on top of. I have asked Ava if she might go over some of the specifics around what we have in that part of our bill.

[Ava Yaskiel, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Finance]

The idea behind the amendments to the Bank Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act is to advance consumers' rights and interests when dealing with their banks. In that vein, there are a number of very specific amendments to make sure the banks take greater responsibility for their interactions with consumers.

It advances a naming and shaming concept, where you amend the act to require that names be made public. This was not the case in the past, over many years. It has substantially increased the fine levels, from up to $500,000 to up to $10 million.

When banks are closed in small areas, there is a detailed notification procedure that must be followed, including six months' notice where there are no other branches within 10 kilometres, and notice to various parties.

There is also the important concept of whistle-blower protection. We have to report to proper authorities, who must keep employees' identities confidential, and there must be systems put in place at the banks to take care of this.

Then, of course, there is dealing with sales tactics. The bank must implement a policy and procedures to ensure that the products and services it sells are appropriate for the consumers it is serving. The employee compensation at the bank should also be set so that it does not interfere with such an approach. One other thing is that the bank can't provide products or services without the consent of the customers. They can't just impose.

Those are a number of the amendments that are being made.

[Kim Rudd]

You mentioned the Canada workers benefit, which I believe currently benefits around 1.4 million low-income working Canadians. In 2019 it will be enhanced by $500 million. Through the process, you're working with provinces and territories to ensure there is harmonization with their programs, so low-income Canadians are always assured they are getting as much as they are entitled to.

There's also the auto-enrolment you mentioned a moment ago, which is extremely important. We saw that with seniors. When the enrolment became automatic, significantly more of them started getting a benefit to which they had been entitled but which they had not been receiving.

Could you quickly speak to these enhancements in what is a critical program for Canadians, and on your thoughts behind why this enhancement is so crucial to many low-income working Canadians?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We see this as a really important benefit, one that was already in place in some measure before we came into office but that we felt needed to be enhanced.

Effectively, what does it do? It helps people move from social assistance into work. It provides the bridge to prevent the situation where there's no benefit to going to work because they're not earning more on an after-tax basis than they would have prior to their new job. We have added some funds to this to enable people to start at a lower income level, so they can get more money through this program and are better off as they make their transition into work. This is going to help a significantly larger number of low-income people to get off social assistance and into some form of work.

That was a critical part of what we did. However, as you mentioned, there were many people—especially those who might not be filing their taxes electronically—who might not have known they were eligible for this benefit. The idea is to ensure that if people qualify, CRA has the ability to automatically give them the Canada workers benefit, which means we have more people in that situation, triggering a much more successful transition from being out of work to being employed. We're allowing people who should make use of that benefit in order to bridge into full-time work to actually get it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Minister. We'll have to leave it there.

Mr. Poilievre is next, and we're on five-minute rounds.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

You spent $4.5 billion of our money to buy a $2-billion pipeline under the promise that it would accelerate the expansion of that pipeline. On what date will the construction of the pipeline expansion begin?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

It was clear that we needed to move forward in a way with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to ensure the pipeline would get done. That was the conclusion we got to in purchasing that pipeline. We are working through a process to make sure this moves forward in the right way. As we have more detailed dates, we will certainly be providing them to Canadians.

[Kim Rudd]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm just not sure where I saw that in the budget implementation bill or the main estimates. I think we're off topic here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

When we go into the estimates, it opens it up.

I provided leeway the first time. The first series of questions were on BIA 1, but I think you can fall back on the estimates, so we'll allow some general questions as a result.

[Kim Rudd]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Poilievre, go ahead.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

On what day will construction begin?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

As you may know from sitting in the House, we're going through a National Energy Board process and we seek to have meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples. The notion of having meaningful engagement and going through that process means—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The question was about the date. Do you know the date?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I'm happy to respond to the question in a reasonable way, if you'd like to hear the answer.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Again, I had a five-second question that required a one-second answer. You still haven't answered it.

The question is, on what date will construction begin on the project?