Finance Committee on May 28th, 2019

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the risk of repeating myself, as I said at the outset, two acts apply to student loans. The amendment I proposed and that has just been voted on was about the Canada Student Loans Act. This amendment applies to Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, and it may be even more appropriate.

Basically, as we said just now, the first act applies to a tiny part of the loans because it applies only to those from before the 2000s. It is a reasonable assumption that it would be quite rare to still find students who took out loans before the 2000s and who are finishing their studies today. Perhaps a few are left.

The amendments proposed to this second act apply to loans taken out since that time. That being the case, it is even more important to have the government’s support. The government must stand either with the students or with the interest, the money, generated at the expense of the students who have finished their studies.

My proposal here is the same as the one I made earlier, that is to put an end to the interest on loans made to students under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. That would put an end to this practice that allows the Government of Canada to become rich at the expense of the students to whom it loaned money so that they could finish their studies.

We should be able to expect that our governments will invest in our students and give them every opportunity to succeed in life, specifically by no longer taking money out of their pockets once their studies are over. It is therefore our hope that, this time, the government will listen to reason and will give those students a real break, not just for six months, but forever.

I hope that the government will support this measure. Basically, if it is ready to grant them a break for six months, why not do so forever, on the entire loan?

I hope I can expect both the government and my Conservative colleagues will agree to support this measure. This time, I hope I have the support of the members of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault.

Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Along the same lines as I discussed in the prior amendment, the BIA legislation contains a number of measures that will help students. As the officials commented, there's about a $2,000 saving per student who is exposed to having student loans, with an expenditure of $1.7 billion. It's a large step in addition to the measures that were brought forward in 2016, which increased the Canada student grants by 50% for low- and middle-income students.

I will be rejecting Mr. Dusseault's amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion or are there questions to officials on this amendment?

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

I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have recorded vote on NDP-29 on clause 325.

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

(Clause 325 agreed to on division)

Thank you, Ms. Torrie and Ms. Gulia.

(On clauses 326 to 335)

There are no amendments on clauses 326 to 335, but we do have officials here on the Canada National Parks Act. Could the officials come up for divisions 23 and 24?

I think some of you were having fun on the bridges this morning, as some of the rest of us were. Traffic's not as heavy in P.E.I., if you want to settle there.

We'll start with division 23 on the Canada National Parks Act. There are no amendments on either that or on the Parks Canada Agency Act. Before I call the question on clauses 326 to 335, are there any questions for officials on any of those clauses?

We'll start with division 23, which is on the Canada National Parks Act, and I guess I should introduce the witnesses as well. We have Mr. McNamee, Director, Protected Areas Establishment, and Mr. McDonough, Executive Director, Pacific and Mountain National Parks. You have a guest with you as well.

Are there any questions for any of the officials on any of these sections?

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

This is like a question, or a commentary, almost. Is there a reason of urgency behind why we're amending the boundaries of the Lake Louise ski area in a budget bill—an omnibus budget bill? This truly makes it omnibus and I have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with what's being done or the details of it. I'm just wondering why this is in the budget bill. Is it due to expediency or cash outlays?

[Dave McDonough, Executive Director, Pacific and Mountain Parks, Parks Canada Agency]

I could answer that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's probably a question for a minister, but go ahead. If you want to answer it, Mr. McDonough, you're away.

[Dave McDonough]

National Parks is a revenue generating agency, and these are also two private businesses. Concluding the ski area boundaries is the final step in quite an involved planning process. This provides them with business certainty as well in terms of their revenue.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

You mentioned the planning process. In the lead-up to it, how long did it take to get to this moment?

[Dave McDonough]

There are two processes, one for Mount Norquay and one for Lake Louise. Each one was probably a two-year process; it would vary. It involved extensive public consultation, discussions with the operators and environmental assessment. Both of these operators agree with these amendments as put forward.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Right. We heard them mentioned at committee. This was a two-year process and the government urgently needed to pass this in a budget bill. That's my understanding, then.

[Dave McDonough]

Again, it's just to provide them with that business certainty going forward.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

You could have done it through a normal bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any further questions to officials?

There are no amendments for clauses 326 to 335. Are we in agreement on carrying those clauses on division?

(Clauses 326 to 335 inclusive agreed to on division)

Thank you, folks.

We are turning to division 25, entitled “Various Measures Related to Indigenous Matters”. We welcome as our witness Jean-Pierre Morin, a Departmental Historian, Strategic Policy Directorate, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.

We have a number of amendments here.

Mr Fragiskatos is putting forward Liberal-11.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

This is a technical amendment. The amendment is required to add a new clause to fix the coming-into-force date for subdivision A to no later than July 15, 2019. This amendment ensures that the coming into force of this legislation is aligned with the consequential amendment relating to the transfer of appropriations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Kmiec, you look like you're chewing at the bit there. Go ahead.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I am indeed, Mr. Chair.

I don't have the letter in front of me, but I thought we got a letter from the INAC committee. I don't know if the clerk has that letter. Were there any amendments suggested by that committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a motion attached, as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

There are no amendments coming from that committee. I'm wondering—and I know that my colleague across the way is a deep well of knowledge—where these amendments are coming from. INAC is actually sitting right next door to us. They're the parliamentarians with expertise to look at this. We've asked other committees to provide that expertise. I think that at this table I would actually lean on Mr. McLeod more so than anybody else on issues like this because it has a direct impact on the communities he serves.

That will be the compliment I'll give you, Michael.

I'm wondering what the rush is here. Why these specific amendments? Why didn't INAC provide them or the government caucus members from that committee express themselves? Some of these look like more than just technical amendments.

I know that witnesses before the committee are only officials. When Conservative members tried to move a motion to have more witnesses appear, it was voted down, so nobody from outside the parliamentary precinct was able to come to testify before the committee to speak to potential amendments or to the impacts that sections in this omnibus budget bill would have on their communities or their organizations.

If none of these amendments were brought forward there and voted on, I'm wondering where they're coming from and what the inspiration is for them. None of these were in the letter from the expert committee. If the finance committee sent a letter somewhere else, we'd assume that people would listen to us if we provided tax expertise on a bill that they were considering. I think the same thing would apply if the immigration committee reported back to us. I think we got told that yesterday by government caucus members.

In the past, it's happened that this committee has had to consider Criminal Code amendment provisions in the omnibus budget bill that created the DPA process. I do remember that several members here, some of whom are no longer members of this committee, were quite upset at the way the government then tried to hoodwink us into approving them on a late Tuesday night.

I'm wondering where these are coming from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Going back to the committee letter, Mr. Kmiec, they say at one point, “however, we encourage the government as they move forward to ensure that they are proceeding with their work on a distinctions basis.”

The government has moved a series of recommendations. I don't know whether they're related to that or are technical amendments, but the government certainly has the right to do that.

Mr. Dusseault.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to echo my colleague’s remarks. Yesterday, the government once more made the case that no amendment is necessary, for the simple reason that other committees have previously decided that none were necessary. In this case, the other committee responsible for studying this matter felt the need to send us some detailed comments, the wording of which leads me to believe that it wants us to make changes, but without providing specific recommendations. Today, the government is proposing a number of amendments to those provisions.

I have a technical question on amendments LIB-11 and LIB-16. My impression is that they have to be studied together, but I really do not understand the reason for amendment LIB 11. I am not sure whether the law clerk or the officials can help us. Clause 336 is already a clause in itself. I am having difficulty understanding why amendment LIB-11 creates a new provision and then amendment LIB 16 seems to allow a coming into force date to be decided for that subdivision specifically, rather than for the entire bill.

Could we have some clarification on that from the person submitting this amendment, or from anyone else? I do not really understand why we need amendment LIB-11 for the mechanism to be able to work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll ask the legislative clerk to respond to that.

[Jacques Maziade]

The amendment seeks to add the expression “Enactment of Act” above the text. This was not really necessary from a technical and procedural point of view, but the decision was to introduce the amendment. There is really no problem with adding that text.