The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples has the honour to table its

NINETEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 25 and 26 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, May 9, 2024, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program

Reducing the cost of Indigenous borrowing is a long-awaited policy priority. Your committee observes that the establishment of an Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program should be applauded. The program has the potential to ensure that Indigenous governments can generate own-source revenue by investing in natural resource projects and participate equally in the wider Canadian economy. Notwithstanding this potential, Shaun Fantauzzo, Vice President of Policy at the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, remarked that a truly sector agnostic approach would entail expanding program eligibility to all sectors, including telecommunications, commercial real estate, and public infrastructure.

Indigenous leaders have advocated for loan guarantee programs so that borrowers can benefit from the Government of Canada’s credit and secure lower interest rates on their loans. Barriers to affordable capital include section 89 of the Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5 which prohibits First Nations from leveraging their assets and pledging them as security to access capital at competitive rates. Unsecured loans often mean exceptionally high interest rates. As Chief Sharleen Gale, Chair of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition noted, many Indigenous Nations have missed out on opportunities to invest in major projects because interest rates offered on loans needed to make the investment were as high as credit card rates.

Your committee observes that the loan guarantee program is still under design and wishes to make the following observations. First, the committee stresses the need to ensure the Board of Directors is comprised of Indigenous peoples. The management and operation of the new organization must also be Indigenous-led, and the program should be administered in a manner that reflects the diverse needs of the Indigenous governments it is meant to serve. The Government of Canada should be innovative in how the Board of Directors is convened and selected and seek to ensure that it is informed by the federal government’s obligation to advancing reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous governments may need legal, technical and economic expertise to help build plans with industry and other governments. Indeed, in a recent survey on the proposed federal Indigenous loan guarantee program, 45 of 50 First Nations respondents emphasized that monies for capacity supports are required to use loan guarantees. The initial $3.5 million allocated for capacity support will need to be increased if the program is intended to match the Indigenous ownership opportunity in Canada, which could require up to $50 billion in Indigenous equity investment in the next 10 years, according to the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. As Chief Gale remarked, the capacity support provided for the Tu Deh-Kah geothermal project alone exceeded what is earmarked for the entire Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program in its first year of operation (i.e., $1.5 million).

Your committee observes that the loan guarantee program needs to be established quickly, in line with commitments made by Finance Canada in testimony before the committee, as it would be beneficial to see the first loan guarantees issued before the end of 2024.

The Government of Canada should also listen to Indigenous leaders and experts in this area to ensure the loan guarantee program is designed to meet their needs. Your committee agrees with witnesses that it will be particularly important to take feedback from these leaders and experts into account when designing the program, so that First Nations can take advantage of investment opportunities. It is thus important to ensure that Indigenous governments who wish to do so can become valued partners in resource development and, ideally, in all sectors of the Canadian economy.

Red Dress Alert

Your committee observes that ending gender and race-based violence against Indigenous women, girls, two-spirited and gender diverse people should be a critical focus for the Government of Canada. The vulnerabilities of trauma, mental health challenges, criminalization, lack of access to justice, systemic failures and socio-economic marginalization contribute to gender and race-based violence against Indigenous women and girls. It must end now.

A solution may be found in the establishment of a national Red Dress Alert system to notify the public in case an Indigenous woman, girl or gender-diverse person goes missing. The committee welcomes, as a first step, the announcement of the recent partnership between Canada and Manitoba along with the proposed $1.3 million in funding for consultations and an evaluation related to a regional Red Dress Alert system pilot as contained in clause 264, Division 26 of Bill C-69. However, your committee observes the work is occurring at an extremely slow pace that does not reflect the urgency of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

The committee wishes to highlight the Unama’ki emergency alert system established in Nova Scotia. This system, a subscription-based emergency alert system, is now serving 4,000 subscribers across five Mi’kmaq communities in Cape Breton. The Unama’ki emergency alert is a proven alert system with participation from police and social services. The committee observes that the project is a success because it was Indigenous-led, had barrier-free registration and was easy and quick to implement.

Your committee agrees with Hilda Anderson-Pyrz, Chair of the National Family and Survivors Circle, that systemic change is required to mend broken relationships and a coordinated approach is necessary to establish a national Red Dress Alert system. Associated with the alert system, culturally appropriate, trauma-informed wrap around services are necessary for Survivors, families and victims. Such services also need to be available to everyone, including remote and isolated Indigenous communities and to urban Indigenous peoples. Family members and survivors of violence need to be at the centre of such initiatives; however, Indigenous leaders should also be involved. Indigenous witnesses also highlighted the importance of training for law enforcement and public education about the problem of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and gender diverse people in the context of this initiative. Your committee observes there is a dire need for interjurisdictional collaboration to put an alert system in place as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources has the honour to table its

EIGHTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 28 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, May 9, 2024, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

Division 28 of Part 4

Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), which relates to federal impact assessments. The IAA received Royal Assent in June 2019 and replaced the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. In October 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada released its opinion in Reference re Impact Assessment Act, concluding that parts of the IAA were outside of federal jurisdiction. Division 28 of Part 4 is the Government of Canada’s legislative response to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. Over 3 meetings, your committee heard 15 witnesses on the subject matter of Division 28 of Part 4. Your committee reports the following observations:

Observation 1

The committee notes that some witnesses suggested that the amendments, which serve to constrain the application of the IAA more narrowly to federal jurisdiction, could correct the jurisdictional problems identified in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Reference re Impact Assessment Act case.

Observation 2

The committee regrets that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change as well as his officials did not appear before the committee to explain the Government of Canada’s proposed amendments in Division 28 and how they comply with the Supreme Court of Canada’s majority opinion.

The committee heard from the Alberta Minister of Justice and the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice, both of whom expressed serious concerns related to the constitutionality of the amendments that could lead to another court challenge.

Observation 3

The committee asks the Government of Canada to provide the Senate with the assurance that the proposed amendment to Paragraph 33(1)(d) of the IAA, which relates to the substitution of federal and provincial assessment processes in respect of consultations with Indigenous groups that may be affected by a designated project, does not contravene Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Observation 4

The committee notes that there is a need for Parliament and the Government of Canada to review the IAA to ensure that other aspects of environmental impacts, including transboundary air pollution, are being addressed.

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples has the honour to present its

EIGHTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Thursday, March 3, 2022, to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples, respectfully requests funds for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

Pursuant to Chapter 3:05, section 1(1)(c) of the Senate Administrative Rules, the budget submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

................Page Break................

STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Examine the constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples

APPLICATION FOR BUDGET AUTHORIZATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 2025

Extract from the Journals of the Senate of Thursday, March 3, 2022:

The Honourable Senator Francis moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be authorized to examine and report on the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples;

That the documents received, evidence heard and business accomplished by the committee since the beginning of the First Session of the Forty-second Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

____________________

Extract from the Journals of the Senate of Thursday, October 26, 2023:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Francis, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gerba:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, March 3, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples in relation to its study on the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples be extended from December 31, 2023 to September 1, 2025; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate its reports relating to this study, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

................Page Break................

SUMMARY OF BUDGET

The above budget was approved by the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples on Wednesday May 8, 2024.

The undersigned or an alternate will be in attendance on the date that this budget is considered.

HISTORICAL INFORMATION GENERAL ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE SPECIAL STUDY

Pursuant to Chapter 3:05, section 1(1)(c) of the Senate Administrative Rules.

Expenses for fiscal year 2022-2023 — $11,650

Expenses for fiscal year 2023-2024 — $8,850

Expenses for fiscal year 2024-2025 — $26,850

Estimate of the total cost of the special study — $47,350

................Page Break................

APPENDIX (B) TO THE REPORT

Thursday, June 6, 2024

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has examined the budget presented to it by the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples for the proposed expenditures of the said committee for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, for its special study on the constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, as authorized by the Senate on Thursday, March 3, 2022. The approved budget is as follows:

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its

THIRTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized by the Rules of the Senate and by section 2:02 (10) of the Senate Administrative Rules, to consider financial and administrative matters, recommends that the following funds be released for the fiscal year 2024-25, and that the committee be empowered to engage the services of such counsel, technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LONG TERM VISION AND PLAN

Pursuant to Chapter 3:05, section 1(1)(c) of the Senate Administrative Rules, the budget submitted by the Subcommittee on the Long Term Vision and Plan to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

................Page Break................

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION

APPLICATION FOR BUDGET AUTHORIZATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 2025

SUMMARY OF BUDGET

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LONG TERM VISION AND PLAN

The above budget was approved by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on Thursday, June 6, 2024.

The undersigned or an alternate will be in attendance on the date that this budget is considered.

................Page Break................

APPENDIX (B) TO THE REPORT

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has examined the budget presented to it by its Subcommittee on the Long Term Vision and Plan for proposed expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, for the purpose of its continued study on the program of work for the Long-Term Vision and Plan for the parliamentary precinct. The approved budget is as follows:

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has the honour to table its

THIRTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 33, 41 and 42 of Part 4, and in Subdivision A of Division 34 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, May 9, 2024, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

Part 4, Division 16

Division 16 of Part 4 would enact the Consumer-Driven Banking Act to establish the consumer-driven banking framework in Canada. It would also amend the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to establish the position of Senior Deputy Commissioner for Consumer-Driven Banking, who would be the regulator responsible for the regime.

The committee underscores the importance of moving quickly and diligently with a consumer-driven banking framework, both to promote competitiveness in the Canadian financial sector and to contribute to a much-needed improvement in Canada’s overall productivity. While the committee recognizes this is the first step in the formalization of Canada’s regime, it has serious concerns regarding Division 16 and the potential unintended consequences for consumers.

The committee believes that a strong governance structure will be essential for the regulator so that Canadians can be confident when participating in the consumer-driven banking regime. The committee has serious reservations over the government’s decision to designate the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) as the regulator for consumer-driven banking, and questions why a more robust, independent regulator that has expertise in enforcement was not chosen. Specifically, the committee is concerned that:

•Having the FCAC as regulator could result in confusion for Canadians that use provincially regulated financial institutions, in particular when choosing the appropriate avenue for resolving complaints. Furthermore, provincially regulated financial institutions may be subject to additional, and potentially conflicting, regulations to participate in the consumer-driven banking regime;

•The FCAC may not acquire the required skillset in time to be a strong and effective regulator, given its traditional consumer awareness role and because its enforcement powers are relatively new; and

•Designating the FCAC as the regulator would limit consumer data portability to financial data and does not envision broader applications for other types of data, such as health care data.

With respect to the selection of the technical standards body, the committee strongly insists that the Minister ensure the body selected is aligned with Canadian interests and that it has a governance structure that conforms with the principles set out in the proposed act. To avoid a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest, those serving on the technical standards body responsible for recommending and overseeing the use of the recognized technical standard should be independent from the interests of the entities managing the technical standard itself.

The committee heard testimony that recommends the removal of Division 16 of Part 4 from Bill C-69 so that further consultation can be done, particularly with provincial regulators, over the next few months. The committee asks that the federal government reconsider the merits of this proposal.

Lastly, the committee continues to be concerned that the federal government chooses to include substantive changes to Canadian law in a budget implementation bill, providing insufficient time to the committee to properly examine the bill and hear stakeholders’ concerns. As well, the committee wants to express its frustration with the pre-study process, as it does not allow the Senate to provide its traditional role of “sober second thought” when studying a bill that has not yet passed in the House of Commons, particularly in cases where amendments have been included at later stages of consideration.

The committee has no material observations regarding Divisions 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 33, 41 and 42 of Part 4, and Subdivision A of Division 34 of Part 4.

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to table its

THIRTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Tuesday, April 26, 2022 to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada, now tables its final report entitled Critical Ground: Why Soil is Essential to Canada’s Economic, Environmental, Human, and Social Health.

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight has the honour to table its

ELEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, which for the purposes of integrity, independence, transparency and accountability, is authorized under rule 12-7(4) to act on its own initiative on certain matters, including retaining the services of internal and external auditors and overseeing such audits, and to report at least annually with observations and recommendations to the Senate, now tables its report entitled Annual Report of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight: Activities and Observations for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has the honour to table its

FOURTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, May 9, 2024, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

1. On May 22, 2024, your committee received testimony from Global Affairs Canada (GAC), the Department of Finance Canada, Development Finance Institute Canada (FinDev Canada), and Export Development Canada (EDC) on the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Part 4 of Bill C-69.

2. Your committee understands that Division 6 of Part 4 of Bill C-69 would amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the maximum financial assistance that may be provided in respect of a particular foreign state from $7 billion to $15 billion, and in respect of all foreign states from $14 billion to $22 billion. Darren Mason, Director, International Monetary and Financial Policy, Department of Finance Canada, told the committee that this amendment would provide greater flexibility to the Government of Canada to allocate additional financial assistance to Ukraine specifically, and to other countries more generally, when it is in Canada’s national interest to do so.

3. Your committee understands that Division 7 of Part 4 of Bill C-69 would amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase payments that the Minister of Finance may provide to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in respect of Canada’s quota, from 11,023,900,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to 16,535,900,000 SDRs. The SDR is an international reserve asset created by the IMF. Mr. Mason told the committee that this amendment is being proposed following the 16^th general review of IMF quotas in December 2023, at which IMF governors voted to raise all member quotas by 50%, and that the increase would allow Canada to maintain its existing quota share of 2.3% at the IMF.

4. As well, Division 7 of Part 4 would amend the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act to increase the range of financial instruments that the Minister of Foreign Affairs may use to provide financial assistance to the international financial institutions listed in the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act’s Schedule. Gina Clark, Senior Director, International Finance Section, Department of Finance Canada, told the committee that these amendments would enable Canada to use innovative financial instruments, such as the purchase of hybrid capital and the provision of guarantees, to assist regional and multilateral development banks in their support of developing countries.

5. In addition, Division 7 of Part 4 would amend the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Act to replace a provision for the Minister of Finance to “provide further payments to the Bank, in respect of supplementary subscriptions of shares” with a provision for the minister to “provide financial assistance to the Bank.” Division 7 would also increase the range of financial instruments that the Minister of Finance may use to provide financial assistance to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development under section 6 of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Act. Philippe Hall, Director, Multilateral Institutions, Department of Finance Canada, told the committee that the amendments to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Act would provide the government with statutory authorities with respect to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development resembling those the government currently possesses with respect to the World Bank Group under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.

6. Your committee understands that Division 8 of Part 4 of Bill C-69 would amend the International Financial Assistance Act to provide that foreign exchange losses accrued under the International Financial Assistance Act must be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Moreover, Division 8 would establish a statutory authority to allow the Minister of International Development to make payments to FinDev Canada. These payments would be subject to regulation and would need to be maintained by FinDev in a separate account. David Bhamjee, Vice-President and Chief Strategy and Engagement Officer, FinDev Canada, told the committee the amendments were in relation to the renewal of the International Assistance Innovation Program (IAIP). The IAIP makes targeted investments meant to mobilize additional private investment in developing countries. Mr. Bhamjee further noted that the amendments would provide FinDev Canada with access to concessional financing and technical assistance funding.

7. Your committee understands that Division 9 of Part 4 of Bill C-69 would amend the Export Development Act to lower the limit of total liabilities and obligations allowed in respect of Canada Account transactions from $115 billion to $100 billion. The Canada Account is used to support export transactions that exceed the financial or risk capacity of EDC’s corporate account, but that have been determined by the Minister for International Trade to be in Canada’s national interest. Ms. Clark told the committee that the proposed lowering of the Canada Account limit is part of a gradual winding down of measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Clark indicated that the Canada Account limit had been increased during the pandemic to support Canadian businesses. The committee was informed that a reduction to the Canada Account limit would have no impact on EDC’s core operations.

8. Your committee has no objections to the amendments proposed in Divisions 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Part 4 of Bill C-69.

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has the honour to table its

TENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 27 and 37 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, May 9, 2024, examined the said subject matter and now reports as follows:

Division 27 of Part 4 provides that the subsidiary of VIA Rail Canada Inc. incorporated with the corporate name VIA HFR - VIA TGF Inc. is, as of the date of its incorporation, an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada and may enter into contracts, agreements and other arrangements with His Majesty as though it were not such an agent.

Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to, among other things, require telecommunications service providers to provide their subscribers with a self-service mechanism that allows them to cancel their contract for telecommunications services or modify their telecommunications service plan and to inform those subscribers before the expiry of their fixed-term contract, as well as in other specified circumstances, of other service plans that those providers offer.

On May 22, 2024 the committee heard officials from Transport Canada. The committee also heard officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) on May 21, 2024 and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) on May 28, 2024.

Transport Canada representatives characterized the proposed High Frequency Rail (HFR) between Toronto and Quebec City as a nation building project. The VIA HRF would be the largest infrastructure project undertaken since the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway. They suggested that the changes proposed in Division 27 of Part 4 are key to providing certainty in the procurement and land acquisition processes for the HFR project.

The committee would have liked more cost-related details about the proposed HFR project, however, Transport Canada officials explained that they need to respect the ongoing competitive request for proposals (RFP) process and not give out numbers that could influence those proposals. Given the ongoing nature of the RFP process, specific details of the HFR route alignment were also unavailable.

To the committee’s disappointment, VIA Rail officials were unable to appear due to a scheduling conflict.

The committee recognizes the importance of the HFR project, but notes that many smaller communities near — but not part of — the HFR corridor, including Cornwall, Ontario, could also use improvements in VIA Rail’s passenger rail services.

ISED officials explained to the committee how the changes proposed in Division 37 of Part 4 would make it easier for consumers to cancel their telecommunications service plans and find a cheaper one.

Officials from the CRTC discussed its ongoing consumer and competition-focused initiatives, while also explaining to the committee that they already have the power to implement the provisions envisioned in this bill, though it does give them additional “policy cover” for that work.

The committee also heard from the consumer groups, OpenMedia and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, at the May 28, 2024 meeting. These groups suggested that while the proposed changes were beneficial to consumers, they would not address the broader challenge of the lack of competition in the Canadian telecommunications sector.

In general, these consumer groups also noted that the pace of the CRTC’s work has slowed down since 2017-2018.

The committee recognizes that the subject matter in Division 27 and Division 37 of Part 4 of Bill C-69 are very complex in nature. Having no clear connection to the government’s budgetary policy, the committee hopes that, in the future, such content would be introduced in separate legislation.

Having heard from witnesses on the subject matter of the parts listed above, your committee supports the proposed changes.

Respectfully submitted,

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to table its

TWENTY-SECOND REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized to examine the the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 3, 4, 5, 14, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32 and 38 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, May 9, 2024, examined the said subject-matter and now reports as follows:

Division 3 — National School Food Program

Division 3 would establish a national school food program.

Your committee learned that establishing a national school food program could extend access to school meals for up to 400,000 more children, aiming to enhance nutrition and academic outcomes, while reducing food insecurity. However, your committee also heard that implementing the program will depend on negotiations with the provinces and territories. The committee urges the Government of Canada to complete these negotiations expeditiously and ensure that the money will be spent on the national school food program and not on other unrelated programs.

Your committee heard that the Government of Canada has limited data on communities facing the greatest need and faces challenges in collecting data. Your committee urges the federal government to ensure robust data collection and to adopt a data-driven approach to ensuring that resources for school food programs are allocated to communities of greatest need.

In the context of developing bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories, which will provide funding aimed at expanding and improving the national school food program, your committee urges the federal government to take into account, notably, the particular needs of official language minority communities.

Division 4 — Student Loan Forgiveness

Division 4 would amend the Canada Student Loans Act and Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to expand loan forgiveness to certain care economy occupations.

Your committee heard that previous student loan forgiveness programs faced low levels of awareness among those in the eligible professions. Your committee therefore suggests that the Government of Canada make substantive efforts to promote awareness of the expanded program among eligible groups once it is implemented, to encourage widespread awareness and participation.

Division 21 — Canada Labour Code (Improving Access to Protections for Employees)

Division 21 would amend the Canada Labour Code to strengthen job protections for federal gig economy workers.

Your committee learned that employee misclassification is a significant issue, particularly in the trucking industry. A witness noted that this misclassification allows employers to evade providing benefits such as overtime, vacation pay, 10 sick days, personal leave and the employer portion of payroll taxes. In turn, many drivers either knowingly or unknowingly file their taxes incorrectly, claim deductions they are not entitled to, or fail to file taxes altogether. The committee further heard that the Canada Revenue Agency could be losing billions of dollars annually due to the tax implications. It was suggested that introducing a presumption of employee status under Division 21 would help Employment and Social Development Canada more effectively address misclassification issues, including those in the trucking industry. However, witnesses emphasized that enforcement will be essential to ensure compliance.

Division 23 — Employment Insurance Act

Division 23 would amend the Employment Insurance Act to further extend (until October 2026) existing measures around Employment Insurance (EI) for seasonal workers in some regions.

Many seasonal workers rely on EI benefits to live with dignity during the off-season. Temporary measures were announced in 2018 to provide up to five additional weeks of regular EI benefits to eligible seasonal claimants living in one of the 13 targeted economic regions. These measures have since been extended to the present day, acknowledging their vital importance for seasonal workers.

Considering the insecurity that these temporary measures cause in the targeted regions, your committee urges the federal government to make these measures permanent, as a first step in a comprehensive reform of the EI program. As promised by the Government of Canada in 2015, this reform must offer a permanent solution to support seasonal workers across Canada.

Division 38 — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (In-Canada Asylum System)

Division 38 would make various amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regarding in-Canada asylum claims.

Your committee heard testimony raising concerns about proposed refugee protection procedure amendments, particularly regarding asylum applications and abandonment proceedings. These changes may exacerbate the vulnerability of claimants due to language barriers or a lack of support networks. Your committee, therefore, recommends that the Government of Canada consider:

• a thorough review to ensure equitable access and to uphold fairness and justice for all claimants; or

• the complete retraction of this division for future study on its own merits.

Your committee heard concerns about the use of substitute decision-making, particularly in the context of pre-removal risk assessments. Witnesses noted that the use of supportive decision-making and designated representatives, instead of substitute decision-making, will help ensure people have meaningful access to procedures and protect individuals’ right to equality. Your committee therefore suggests that the Government of Canada investigate supportive decision-making models and designated representatives within the asylum system.

General Observations

Your committee was asked to study the subject matter of ten divisions of Part 4 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1.

It is the opinion of your committee that there was insufficient time available to properly examine these divisions, and to consult with experts and witnesses. Your committee continues to be concerned that the federal government chooses to include substantive changes to Canadian law in a budget implementation act.

Furthermore, your committee believes that a budget implementation act should be linked only to the costed measures in the budget. Certain divisions your committee studied, including Divisions 21 and Division 22 (Canada Labour Code), Division 31 (Food and Drugs Act) and Division 38 (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), did not contain any financial provisions. Your committee, therefore, recommends that sections like these be the subject of subsequent stand-alone legislation.

Your committee has no specific observations regarding Divisions 5, 14, 22, 31 and 32 of Part 4 of Bill C-69.

Respectfully submitted,