Finance Committee on May 5th, 2022

[Martin Simard]

It's an international standard, so in the CBCA “significant control” is defined as 25%. For example, there are different criteria. It's not only share-holding. In the past we would define “control” just by ownership of shares, but it's broader than that. It's all forms of control. It could be through debt. It could be through other means.

The definition is fairly robust and complies with the international standard. Again, that's been in place since 2018, when the first step was to have all federally regulated corporations know who their beneficial owners were. So right now, all businesses are already supposed to have in their register information about who their beneficial owners are. What this step does is centralize it. The director will collect it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I have just one last thought. It is really the expectation of Canadians that this be a publicly accessible registry. I just want to make sure that the officials know that. Certainly we, as a Conservative opposition, will be following this very closely to make sure that what we get at the end of the day is in fact a publicly searchable registry that Canadians can access.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, and thank you, MP Fast.

We are now hearing from the Liberals. We have MP Baker for five minutes.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our public servants who are here with us today.

I know we have officials here from Finance, Treasury Board, Global Affairs and other departments. I just want to reiterate what others have already said, which is our sincerest thanks for your service to Canada, especially for the way that all of you have come together and worked incredibly hard to support and lead Canada's work in supporting Ukraine as it tries to defend itself, and the rest of us, from Russia.

The first set of questions I want to ask about relates to the special economic measures Ms. Dzerowicz was asking about a little earlier. Could one of our officials tell me what the value is of the assets belonging to the sanctioned people and entities believed to be in Canada at this current time^

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

Good afternoon.

Again, this is Lynn McDonald from Global Affairs Canada.

Currently, every person in Canada and Canadians abroad have to disclose to the RCMP the existence of any asset in their possession or control that they have reason to believe is owned or controlled by a sanctioned person or by an entity owned or controlled by a designated or sanctioned person. That information is disclosed into the RCMP.

At this present time, Global Affairs Canada is not in a position to have an accurate or up-to-date figure to share. That, as I mentioned, is within the knowledge of the RCMP.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Ms. McDonald, I appreciate that those records are confidential, because they are shared with the RCMP, and there would be a whole series of considerations as to why that information would be kept confidential. I'm very interested in this measure, and I think it's excellent. But just for the folks at home, my constituents who are watching or other folks who are interested in this measure, they are curious about what the impact would be of this measure.

You spoke earlier in response to Ms. Dzerowicz. When Minister Freeland was before the committee, she spoke about why these measures were put in place. It was partly to ensure, at least in my mind, that those who are responsible are punished for what they've done in supporting Russia's war on Ukraine, but also to ensure that we have the resources, as you pointed out earlier, Ms. McDonald, to support the victims of this war and help rebuild Ukraine.

I think a lot of people are interested in the impact of this measure, which depends of course a little bit on the amount of assets we are going to be able to seize. Do we have a ballpark sense of that? I'm not asking for the data shared with the RCMP. I'm thinking more broadly. Are we talking about tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars in order of magnitude? Do you have any sense of that?

[Dr. Lynn McDonald]

I regret that I don't have that type of ballpark figure to disclose at this point in time. What I can say is that the measures are aimed at giving the government the opportunity to seize and, where appropriate, forfeit assets that would include, for example, financial assets like cash and securities or non-financial assets such as real property and other tangible assets. There are a great number, as parliamentarians will be aware, of individuals whom Canada has sanctioned and entities pursuant to the SEMA Russia regulations. It's not clear that all of those individuals would have assets based in Canada.

As I mentioned, it would be through the operation of the obligation and duty to disclose that Canadians and Canadian financial institutions would disclose to the RCMP when they were aware of those assets being present. It would be a combination of those, and also an assessment made as to whether the appropriate evidentiary basis can be established that's set out in the amendment to ensure that the government could proceed with the seizure and then the forfeiture order. Certainly the opportunity is now there through the amendments, but with regard to providing you with a ballpark figure, I regret that I'm not in a position to do so this afternoon. Certainly the groundwork is laid through these amendments.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you for laying that groundwork.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Baker.

We move now to the Bloc with MP Ste-Marie for two and a half minutes please.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will make a brief comment and then ask a question. Of course, it could be more political and it could be addressed to the Minister of Finance or the government, but since they are not here, I would still like to ask the officials of the Department of Finance to give me a technical answer following my comment.

It is about the structure of the bill's budget implementation divisions. We have to study 421 pages by the end of June. Today we are looking at part 5, whose elements are very disparate. All kinds of topics are covered.

In my opinion, the first parts should be about the budget implementation. However, division 18 is an act in itself: the Gateway Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act. It talks about how Canadian law will apply in space. What does that have to do with the budget that was presented?

Division 19 is even more appalling. It's about strip searches, body cavity searches, and being held in a bare cell until the ingested object is expelled. Why are we studying this at the Standing Committee on Finance?

Can senior officials from the Department of Finance explain to me the logic behind this budget implementation bill, which covers lots of topics?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Was there a question there for the officials?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes, that's right.

I'm asking the senior officials of the Department of Finance if there is a technical logic to proceeding in this way, or if it's a political choice to have fewer votes in the House.

[Jason Wood, Executive Director, Space Exploration Policy, Department of Industry]

Thank you, Chair.

With respect to division 18, I'm not in a position to speak to the rationale behind the composition of the budget implementation act. I can, however, speak to the economic benefits related to the implementation of the lunar gateway. The gateway itself will generate 600 highly skilled jobs across Canada and contribute $71 million annually to Canada's GDP. I can also speak to the timeliness of putting forward this legislation in terms our need to be able to ratify and fully implement the treaty with the United States that enables us to implement the gateway agreement. Currently it is being provisionally applied. Most, but not all, of the agreement is in place, and it's necessary to move forward swiftly with this implementing legislation in order to achieve the economic benefits that I mentioned earlier.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

Now we'll move to the NDP and MP Gazan, for two and a half minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

I asked questions about water, particularly relating to Nunavut. Part of the reason that we know the federal government wastes between $500 million to $1 billion a year on fighting indigenous peoples in court. We know that there was an allocation given to Nunavut, which was probably not enough to rectify the problem—a huge waste of taxpayer dollars—but I'll leave it at that.

Today is the National Day of Awareness for Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls. When I ask questions in the House about where things are at, the current government usually defers to the 2021 budget, because, as we know, there was zero budgetary allocation in this budget to deal with the crisis of violence.

I'm wondering if any officials online can tell me how much of the 2021 budget that was allocated has been spent to date.

Do I take that as a no, or is somebody able to answer that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Is there an official who can answer that, or at least take the question and venture to find the answer for the member?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think I'll leave it at that. Please send that in writing.

I put forward an order paper question and I'm still waiting for a response. I say that because we're not really seeing movement on the ground and I can't seem to get any sort of indication on what's been spent or what the plan is. As everybody knows—and I certainly appreciated the support and solidarity in the House of Commons today from all parties—solidarity only goes so far. As for action, I'm not seeing any action.

Moving to a different area, one thing that the pandemic really highlighted was the necessity for paid sick days. We know that people are going to work sick. They should be able to stay home and get well, especially with what we saw during the pandemic.

I was pleased to see the inclusion of 10 paid sick days in division 29. I'm wondering if officials would be able to walk the committee through what the changes in this section will do.

[Zia Proulx, Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Good afternoon. I'm Zia Proulx.

I'd be happy to walk you through the key changes. Basically, there are five key things, including in BIA Number 1.

I'll give you just a general overview. They're basically in response to some amendments that were made during the legislative process of Bill C-3, which happened in the fall of 2021, and also stakeholder feedback that we received in March. We did consultations on the implementation of the paid sick leave provisions and on the regulations.

The first key point is that it would simplify how employees earn paid sick leave days. Stakeholders told us that the rules setting out the rate at which employees earn their days of paid sick leave are complex. The rule was that you would earn three days of leave after 30 days of employment, and then you would need to wait another 60 days before being able to earn additional days, but always for up to 10 days per year. The proposed amendment would remove the 60-day period, so it would make it simpler. The earnings model would be simpler for employees, employers and for enforcement.

The second part is that it would align the requirements for the provision of medical certificates for paid sick leave and unpaid sick leave. Bill C-3, which received royal assent in December, created a misalignment between the requirements for medical certificates under the Canada Labour Code for paid sick leave and unpaid sick leave. It was five days for paid sick leave, and it had to be three days for unpaid leave. If the proposed amendment is adopted, employers would be entitled to request a medical certificate if the leaves of absence are five days or longer, regardless if it's paid or unpaid.

The third key point is, as currently drafted, employees whose employers change as a result of a transfer of business or contract retendering process could lose their earned days of paid sick leave, despite working the same job. That is inconsistent with other parts of the Canada Labour Code, like annual vacation, so the legislation—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Sorry, can I just—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm sorry, Ms. Gazan, but that's the time. We've gone way over.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Ms. Proulx, maybe you can send the rest of that response to the committee. That would be great.

[Zia Proulx]

I will do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

We're moving to the Conservatives for five minutes.

Go ahead, MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to return to some of the process questions with respect to the Competition Act changes. Just for clarity, will future consultations be on the interpretation and how these new provisions will be applied, or do they relate to new changes that have not yet been proposed?

I'm wondering if industry will be consulted on these changes and how they'll be interpreted.