Bill C-19

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures by
(a) providing a Labour Mobility Deduction for the temporary relocation of tradespeople to a work location;
(b) allowing for the immediate expensing of eligible property by certain Canadian businesses;
(c) allowing the Children’s Special Allowance to be paid in respect of a child who is maintained by an Indigenous governing body and providing consistent tax treatment of kinship care providers and foster parents receiving financial assistance from an Indigenous governing body and those receiving such assistance from a provincial government;
(d) doubling the allowable qualifying expense limit under the Home Accessibility Tax Credit;
(e) expanding the criteria for the mental functions impairment eligibility as well as the life-sustaining therapy category eligibility for the Disability Tax Credit;
(f) providing clarity in respect of the determination of the one-time additional payment under the GST/HST tax credit for the period 2019-2020;
(g) changing the delivery of Climate Action Incentive payments from a refundable credit claimed annually to a credit that is paid quarterly;
(h) temporarily extending the period for incurring eligible expenses and other deadlines under film or video production tax credits;
(i) providing a tax incentive for specified zero-emission technology manufacturing activities;
(j) providing the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) the discretion to accept late applications for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and the Canada Recovery Hiring Program;
(k) including postdoctoral fellowship income in the definition of “earned income” for RRSP purposes;
(l) enabling registered charities to enter into charitable partnerships with organizations other than qualified donees under certain conditions;
(m) allowing automatic and immediate revocation of the registration of an organization as a charity where that organization is listed as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code ;
(n) enabling the CRA to use taxpayer information to assist in the collection of Canada Emergency Business Account loans; and
(o) expanding capital cost allowance deductions to include new clean energy equipment.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act , the Children’s Special Allowances Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , the Income Tax Regulations and the Children’s Special Allowance Regulations .
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) ensuring that all assignment sales in respect of newly constructed or substantially renovated residential housing are taxable supplies for GST/HST purposes; and
(b) extending eligibility for the expanded hospital rebate to health care services supplied by charities or non-profit organizations with the active involvement of, or on the recommendation of, either a physician or a nurse practitioner, irrespective of their geographic location.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act, 2001 , the Excise Act and other related texts in order to implement three measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 implements a new federal excise duty framework for vaping products by, among other things,
(a) requiring that manufacturers of vaping products obtain a vaping licence from the CRA;
(b) requiring that all vaping products that are removed from the premises of a vaping licensee to be entered into the Canadian market for retail sale be affixed with an excise stamp;
(c) imposing excise duties on vaping products to be paid by vaping product licensees;
(d) providing for administration and enforcement rules related to the excise duty framework on vaping products;
(e) providing the Governor in Council with authority to provide for an additional excise duty in respect of provinces and territories that enter into a coordinated vaping product taxation agreement with Canada; and
(f) making related amendments to other legislative texts, including to allow for a coordinated federal/provincial-territorial vaping product taxation system and to ensure that the excise duty framework applies properly to imported vaping products.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the excise duty exemption under the Excise Act, 2001 for wine produced in Canada and composed wholly of agricultural or plant product grown in Canada.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act to eliminate excise duty for beer containing no more than 0.5% alcohol by volume.
Part 4 enacts the Select Luxury Items Tax Act . That Act creates a new taxation regime for domestic sales, and importations into Canada, of certain new motor vehicles and aircraft priced over $100,000 and certain new boats priced over $250,000. It provides that the tax applies if the total price or value of the subject select luxury item at the time of sale or importation exceeds the relevant price threshold. It provides that the tax is to be calculated at the lesser of 10% of the total price of the item and 20% of the total price of the item that exceeds the relevant price threshold. To promote compliance with the new taxation regime, that Act includes modern elements of administration and enforcement aligned with those found in other taxation statutes. Finally, this Part also makes related and consequential amendments to other texts to ensure proper implementation of the new tax and to ensure a cohesive and efficient administration by the CRA.
Division 1 of Part 5 retroactively renders a provision of the contract that is set out in the schedule to An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway , chapter 1 of the Statutes of Canada, 1881, to be of no force or effect. It retroactively extinguishes any obligations and liabilities of Her Majesty in right of Canada and any rights and privileges of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company arising out of or acquired under that provision.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act to give force of law to the entire Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement during the period that that Taxation Agreement is, by its terms, in force.
Division 3 of Part 5 repeals the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act .
It also amends the Income Tax Act to exempt from taxation under that Act any income earned by the Safe Drinking Water Trust in accordance with the Settlement Agreement entered into on September 15, 2021 relating to long-term drinking water quality for impacted First Nations.
Division 4 of Part 5 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of addressing transit shortfalls and needs and improving housing supply and affordability.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act by adding the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and one other member to that Corporation’s Board of Directors.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to, among other things, count previously excluded borrowings made in the spring of 2021 in the calculation of the maximum amount that may be borrowed. It also amends the Financial Administration Act to change certain reporting requirements in relation to amounts borrowed under orders made under paragraph 46.1(c) of that Act.
Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to, among other things, permit the establishment of a solvency reserve account in the pension fund of certain defined benefit plans and require the establishment of governance policies for all pension plans.
Division 9 of Part 5 amends the Special Import Measures Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that assessments of injury are to take into account impacts on workers;
(b) require the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to make inquiries with respect to massive importations when it is acting under section 42 of that Act;
(c) require that Tribunal to initiate expiry reviews of certain orders and findings;
(d) modify the deadline for notifying the government of the country of export of properly documented complaints;
(e) modify the criteria for imposing duties in cases of massive importations;
(f) modify the criteria for initiating anti-circumvention investigations; and
(g) remove the requirement that, in order to find circumvention, the principal cause of the change in a pattern of trade must be the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties.
It also amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act to provide that trade unions may, with the support of domestic producers, file global safeguard complaints.
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, modernize corporate governance communications of financial institutions.
Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Insurance Companies Act to permit property and casualty companies and marine companies to not include the value of certain debt obligations when calculating their borrowing limit.
Division 12 of Part 5 enacts the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act . The Act prohibits the purchase of residential property in Canada by non-Canadians unless they are exempted by the Act or its regulations or the purchase is made in certain circumstances specified in the regulations.
Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Parliament of Canada Act and makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts to, among other things,
(a) change the additional annual allowances that are paid to senators who occupy certain positions so that the government’s representatives and the Opposition in the Senate are eligible for the allowances for five positions each and the three other recognized parties or parliamentary groups in the Senate with the greatest number of members are eligible for the allowances for four positions each;
(b) provide that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate are to be consulted on the appointment of certain officers and agents of Parliament; and
(c) provide that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate may change the membership of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Division 14 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act in order to, among other things, allow the Treasury Board to provide certain services to certain entities.
Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to enhance the Commissioner of Competition’s investigative powers, criminalize wage fixing and related agreements, increase maximum fines and administrative monetary penalties, clarify that incomplete price disclosure is a false or misleading representation, expand the definition of anti-competitive conduct, allow private access to the Competition Tribunal to remedy an abuse of dominance and improve the effectiveness of the merger notification requirements and other provisions.
Division 16 of Part 5 amends the Copyright Act to extend certain terms of copyright protection, including the general term, from 50 to 70 years after the life of the author and, in doing so, implements one of Canada’s obligations under the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement.
Division 17 of Part 5 amends the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that the College has sufficient independence and flexibility to exercise its corporate functions;
(b) provide statutory immunity to certain persons involved in the regulatory activities of the College; and
(c) grant powers to the Registrar and Investigations Committee that will allow for improved efficiency in the complaints and discipline process.
Division 18 of Part 5 enacts the Civil Lunar Gateway Agreement Implementation Act to implement Canada’s obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil Lunar Gateway. It provides for powers to protect confidential information provided under the Memorandum. It also makes related amendments to the Criminal Code to extend its application to activities related to the Lunar Gateway and to the Government Employees Compensation Act to address the cross-waiver of liability set out in the Memorandum.
Division 19 of Part 5 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to restrict the use of detention in dry cells to cases where the institutional head has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate has ingested contraband or that contraband is being carried in the inmate’s rectum.
Division 20 of Part 5 amends the Customs Act in order to authorize its administration and enforcement by electronic means and to provide that the importer of record of goods is jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable to pay duties on the goods under section 17 of that Act with the importer or person authorized to account for the goods, as the case may be, and the owner of the goods.
Division 21 of Part 5 amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of wilfully promoting antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust through statements communicated other than in private conversation.
Division 22 of Part 5 amends the Judges Act , the Federal Courts Act , the Tax Court of Canada Act and certain other acts to, among other things,
(a) implement the Government of Canada’s response to the report of the sixth Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding salaries and benefits and to create the office of supernumerary prothonotary of the Federal Court;
(b) increase the number of judges for certain superior courts and include the new offices of Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick and Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan;
(c) create the offices of prothonotary and supernumerary prothonotary of the Tax Court of Canada; and
(d) replace the term “prothonotary” with “associate judge”.
Division 23 of Part 5 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions establishing categories of foreign nationals for the purposes of determining to whom an invitation to make an application for permanent residence is to be issued, as well as instructions setting out the economic goal that that Minister seeks to support in establishing the category;
(b) prevent an officer from issuing a visa or other document to a foreign national invited in respect of an established category if the foreign national is not in fact eligible to be a member of that category;
(c) require that the annual report to Parliament on the operation of that Act include a description of any instructions that establish a category of foreign nationals, the economic goal sought to be supported in establishing the category and the number of foreign nationals invited to make an application for permanent residence in respect of the category; and
(d) authorize that Minister to give instructions respecting the class of permanent residents in respect of which a foreign national must apply after being issued an invitation, if the foreign national is eligible to be a member of more than one class.
Division 24 of Part 5 amends the Old Age Security Act to correct a cross-reference in that Act to the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 .
Division 25 of Part 5
(a) amends the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a worker who received, for a four-week period, an income support payment and who received, for any week during the four-week period, any benefit, allowance or money referred to in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of that Act;
(b) amends the Canada Emergency Student Benefit Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a student who received, for a four-week period, a Canada emergency student benefit and who received, for any week during the four-week period, any benefit, allowance or money referred to in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of that Act; and
(c) amends the Employment Insurance Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a claimant who received, for any week, an employment insurance emergency response benefit and who received, for that week, any payment or benefit referred to in paragraph 153.9(2)(c) or (d) of that Act.
Division 26 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) replace employment benefits and support measures set out in Part II of that Act with employment support measures that are intended to help insured participants and other workers — including workers in groups underrepresented in the labour market — to obtain and keep employment; and
(b) allow the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to enter into agreements to provide for the payment of contributions to organizations for the costs of measures that they implement and that are consistent with the purpose and guidelines set out in Part II of that Act.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act .
Division 27 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers and to extend, until October 28, 2023, the increase in the maximum number of weeks for which those benefits may be paid. It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 to add a transitional measure in relation to amendments to the Employment Insurance Regulations that are found in that Act.
Division 28 of Part 5 amends the Canada Pension Plan to make corrections respecting
(a) the calculation of the minimum qualifying period and the contributory period for the purposes of the post-retirement disability benefit;
(b) the determination of values for contributors who have periods excluded from their contributory periods by reason of disability; and
(c) the attribution of amounts for contributors who have periods excluded from their contributory periods because they were family allowance recipients.
Division 29 of Part 5 amends An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) shorten the period before which an employee begins to earn one day of medical leave of absence with pay per month;
(b) standardize the conditions related to the requirement to provide a medical certificate following a medical leave of absence, regardless of whether the leave is paid or unpaid;
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in certain circumstances, including to modify certain provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay;
(d) ensure that, for the purposes of medical leave of absence, an employee who changes employers due to the lease or transfer of a work, undertaking or business or due to a contract being awarded through a retendering process is deemed to be continuously employed with one employer; and
(e) provide that the provisions relating to medical leave of absence come into force no later than December 1, 2022.
Division 30 of Part 5 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) require certain corporations to send to the Director appointed under that Act information on individuals with significant control on an annual basis or when a change occurs;
(b) allow that Director to provide all or part of that information to an investigative body, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada or any prescribed entity; and
(c) clarify that, for the purposes of subsection 21.1(7) of that Act, it is the securities of a corporation, not the corporation itself, that are listed and posted for trading on a designated stock exchange.
Division 31 of Part 5 amends the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to, among other things,
(a) create regimes allowing for the forfeiture of property that has been seized or restrained under those Acts;
(b) specify that the proceeds resulting from the disposition of those properties are to be used for certain purposes; and
(c) allow for the sharing of information between certain persons in certain circumstances.
It also makes amendments to the Seized Property Management Act in relation to those forfeiture of property regimes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

First, thank you for being here and for answering all these questions.

I think part of the reason it's so important, at least for me, is, one, we have made some really amazing progress on and generational change to our competition law, and when the commissioner came, he acknowledged that. Then he also said he felt there were two really important additions we also needed to consider for C-59. My ears did perk up at that, because I think he was very happy with C-56, C-19 and, now, the changes around competition here in C-59. However, he then very deliberately said there are two things he really feels we need to have right now. I believe, if I'm correct, the amendment that's before us.... It was when he was talking about merger reviews that he said:

Merger review is our first line of defence for protecting competition. However, when we find that a merger is anti-competitive, the law does not require strong remedies.

That's this one that we're referring to.

Then he said:

The Supreme Court held that the goal of a merger remedy is simply to mitigate the harm from a merger so that it is no longer substantial, and to do so in the least intrusive way. As a result, we sometimes end up with merger remedies that take a strong competitor in a market and replace it with a weaker one.

Do you agree with his assessment on that? Do you agree with those statements?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

That's very good, thank you.

I now turn to the representatives of the Competition Bureau Canada, namely Mr. Durocher, Mr. Boswell and Ms. Pratt.

The letter that the bureau sent to the committee on March 1 states that the amendments proposed in Bill C‑59, as well as the recent reforms made in bills C‑19 and C‑56, represent a generational upgrade to Canada's competition legal framework. All three bills mentioned are budget implementation bills.

Do you believe that reform of the Competition Act, through a bill dealing solely with it, would be beneficial so that parliamentarians can weigh every effect of the act and of any amendments made to such a bill?

[Matthew Boswell]

What I can say is that the amendments we saw to Bill C-19 and Bill C-56, and the amendments that are proposed to Bill C-59, are significant changes to Canada's competition laws. They are generational, in fact. They make positive changes in multiple different ways.

With them, Canada is catching up to the rest of the world. As I've said before this committee, we have been an international outlier on many fronts in terms of how we handle competition in Canada. What we've seen are positive changes to catch us up.

I would say it's not a question of putting a banner up that says, “Mission accomplished” on a ship in New York Harbor. This is constant work that we need to do. There are other things that other countries are doing that we have not yet tackled in Canada, including really talking about how to deal with digital platforms and the serious competition issues that they can present. Other countries are taking very definitive strides in that regard.

To go back to your point about the lack of business investment in Canada, about a month ago, StatsCan put out a report that analyzed a 15-year period that demonstrated quite clearly the decline in business investment across the country. It pointed to competition as a significant factor in the lack of that investment. When you're not afraid of somebody eating your lunch—I'm sorry to use the proverbial term—there isn't that drive to invest in order to get better, produce better products, be more efficient and all of those things. It's a big issue.

The amendments are certainly significant. As you heard in my opening comments, I don't think we could go further, even in Bill C-59, to further strengthen various aspects of the Competition Act in Canada.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to say a huge thank you for the excellent presentations.

I'll start off with our competition commissioner. I have been very worried for years about a lack of business investment by our businesses in Canada. Before the pandemic, we had probably over 10 years of historic low interest rates. Typically, the theory is that if you have low interest rates, companies are going to take the cheap capital and actually reinvest in their companies. We did not see that.

I've suspected that one of the key things is around competition. Our government has done a lot of consultations around competition and how we strengthen competition law. I think we've had three bills that have attempted to strengthen our competition law and update it: Bill C-19, Bill C-56 and now Bill C-59.

Just as a general first question, would you say that collectively the changes we've made to the competition law and the act have made it overall much better and that Canada will be more competitive?

[Dr. Jennifer Quaid, Associate Professor and Vice-Dean Research, Civil Law Section, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, Deputy Chairs, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, good morning.

For those who don't know me, I'm an associate professor and vice-dean of research at the University of Ottawa's Civil Law Section. My areas of expertise are corporate criminal law, general criminal law, business law, corporate regulation and competition law.

I am very pleased to appear before you to share my thoughts on section 6 of Bill C‑59, namely competition-related measures.

Let me add that, although I have prepared this statement primarily in English, I will, of course, be happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.

This is the first time that I am appearing before FINA—I'm glad to be here—but it is not the first time that I have appeared before parliamentary committees over the past couple of years, as the government has undertaken a major reform of the Competition Act, the first since 2009. As you know, the reform has been split into three parts: Bill C-19, enacted in June 2022, then Bill C-56, enacted in December 2023, and now Bill C-59 before you.

In the interests of time and given the scope of the proposed reform to the Competition Act, I will make four general points rather than going into detail about the extensive changes proposed, but I am at your disposal to answer questions on any aspects of the reform, and I may very well submit a brief if I have time.

Let me start by saying that the reform has made a lot of changes to the Competition Act, but not enough. Given the amount of political and public attention being directed at the state of competition—or the lack thereof—expectations for positive change flowing from this reform are very high, but are they warranted? To me, this is the central question that cuts across all aspects of the reform. Will we have better and more effective enforcement against anti-competitive practices and will we also at the same time promote better market and business conditions to promote a dynamic and innovative economy?

In my opinion, whether these expectations can be met depends on whether we are prepared to do what is necessary to operationalize the reform in a way that respects the spirit of what is driving the changes. It is also essential that we adopt a mindset of competition law and policy as a dynamic process that adapts to an ever-evolving economy while remaining true to the underlying values that Canadians share.

While there have been many changes to the act, fundamentally, it's still a cumbersome, overly detailed legislative text. This in the past has led to the development of complex analytical frameworks requiring specialized expert evidence. Obtaining remedies to anti-competitive behaviour is difficult, expensive and uncertain.

Many of the changes in the act right now are designed to respond to long-standing criticisms and to enforcement challenges, but I worry, to be frank, that fixing these problems is only.... We're not really addressing the underlying structural problems of how the act is designed. The fact that we've got all of these little different ways of going about characterizing conduct is actually just going to generate new problems. We haven't really done the rethink we need.

I could give one example. There's been an attempt to standardize the way we approach different reviewable practices, but in doing so, the fundamental question is, do we need to do that or could we just have one recourse for anti-competitive practices? Why, all of a sudden, are we blurring the lines between all of these different recourses? To me, that's creating a legal ambiguity that's not going to help anyone. I have other examples, but I'll talk about that in the questions, because I see my time going.

The second thing we need is a mechanism by which the act can be updated on a regular basis. Even with a perfect reform right now, we can't just stop and rest on our laurels. I think it's prudent to think about that now. We've had 15 years between the last reform and now; that's too long. What that means is that we've had to take on a huge reform and split it over three bills, but we've done it in two years. Everyone is still catching their breath, it's been so fast.

Given the pace at which technological and societal changes are occurring, I think it would make sense to plan for periodic review at maybe a three- or five-year interval. That way, we could do things in manageable chunks and not have to use this sort of wholescale giant process and then put it in a budget bill. I think we have to get into that mindset.

The third thing I'm going to raise is that for this reform to work it needs to be supported by adequate resources and expertise. Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 especially add considerable components to the bureau's mandate, and I don't see any new resources coming here. The last ones were allocated in 2021, as far as I know.

I worry for things like understanding labour impacts in mergers and trying to determine whether the bureau can issue a certificate for expertise in environmental issues. Are those things that we should just leave to the existing resources? I think we need to ask ourselves that question: Do we have the resources to make this work?

Finally, this is not the end—and I will close quickly, Mr. Chair. At the beginning of this process a couple of years ago, there was a lot of energy and enthusiasm, and it seemed like there was more audacity and willingness to think outside the box. Then we kind of got into a more technocratic mindset, and what we have before us are a lot of changes, but they are mostly technical and legal.

I think we still need to have that broader conversation about what competition law and policy in the 21st century look like, and we need to do that by consulting people and talking to Canadians about what they want and then maybe having a broader process of approaching it. There's a lot of energy. There are a lot of new voices to the conversation. There's a lot of enthusiasm. I really wish they would do that.

Thank you.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their excellent testimony. I wish I had time for each one of you, but I do not.

I'm going to start off with you, Mr. Bester, for maybe a minute or so. I want to put onto the record that we did have our competition commissioner come before our committee on Bill C-59. He's also been before the Senate, and he was actually before the Senate when he made the following statement:

Fortunately, the changes proposed in C-59, together with the recent reforms made in Bills C-19 and C-56, represent a generational upgrade in our competition law framework. I applaud the Government, Parliamentarians and citizens from across the country for their efforts in shaping this modernization process. It is the product of years of public and expert dialogue and parliamentary debate. The changes deliver on a significant number of the Competition Bureau's recommendations, and will help bring our competition regime in line with international best practice.

I wanted to put that in.

I also want to thank you. You've made some excellent recommendations, and I really appreciated your exchange with Mr. Williams. I actually think there's a lot more we could be doing, but I think we have done a significant amount and I think it's very, very critical that we acknowledge that. I personally would love to see a review right across our whole government around what's stopping competition from happening. I think if we did a whole-of-government review, that would be another excellent step forward.

My next couple of questions are for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I'm a very big fan of the work the Canadian chamber does. You do very important work.

Mr. Detchou, you started off by saying the economic competitiveness in the last 12 quarters has significantly declined. I want to put on the record that in the last three years, from 2021 to 2023, we were coming out of a pandemic, so the whole world was dealing with the after-effects of an economic heart attack. I think, as you will see from a lot of what we've put into Bill C-59, that we are transitioning our economy from competitive, growth and productivity perspectives.

On that, I know the chamber was very supportive when we announced the investment tax credit, so thank you. There are some companies, such as Dow, that are already benefiting from the ITCs, and they are creating significant opportunities for workers. Can you maybe initially speak to how important these are in driving investment, innovation and economic competitiveness?

After that I will have a follow-up question.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to provide the House with an explanatory ruling on the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. On November 29, 2023, I ruled that the order for consideration of the motion, and the subsequent bill based thereon, be allowed to proceed further.

On November 28, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition challenged the admissibility of the motion. He pointed out that Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), both currently in committee, were substantially the same as provisions covered in Ways and Means Motion No. 19, tabled earlier that day.

Concurrence in a ways and means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill based on the provisions of the motion. This is indeed what happened with the subsequent introduction of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

The House leader argued that the two private members’ bills had already been the subject of decisions of the House at second reading. The ways and means motion and Bill C-59 would violate a procedural concept, the rule of anticipation, which he described as the “same question rule”. Quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 568, the member seemed to suggest that a ways and means motion could not anticipate a matter already standing on the Order Paper and which was contained in another form of proceeding. He asserted that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 were more effective tools to accomplish the desired intent than Ways and Means Motion No. 19. As such, both these bills should have priority over the motion.

He also cited precedents in relation to bills that could or could not proceed further, based on the fundamental principle that the same question cannot be decided twice within a session.

The member further suggested that Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be put in abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, based on the rule of anticipation.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that further consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 19, as well as subsequent proceedings on an associated bill, was in order. He referenced past precedents about similar bills. He made the point that the provisions in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contained numerous elements that are not found in Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, which indicates that the principle and scope of the ways and means motion are broader than what is found in either of the bills. As such, Ways and Means Motion No. 19, and the bill based thereon, constituted different questions.

In his intervention, the House leader of the official opposition quoted from page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the rule of anticipation. The Chair would like to read, from the same page, prior to the quoted passage. It states:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

Further down on the same page it says, “While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.”

Even though the notion of anticipation is described in our procedural authorities, and the expression is sometimes colloquially used in points of order and even some past rulings dealing with similar items, it is indeed a very difficult concept to apply in our context.

Establishing a hierarchy between bills and motions, or between categories of bills, and giving precedence to some, may prove difficult, except in very specific cases, detailed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Bills and motions are different by nature and achieve different ends.

What the Chair is seized with in reviewing the current matter is the rule forbidding the same question from being decided twice in the same session. It is different from the concept of anticipation and, in the view of the Chair, the one that should apply.

In his submission, the House leader of the official opposition cited various recent precedents, and the Chair thinks it pertinent to describe some of their procedural subtleties.

The first example, from the last Parliament, pertained to two bills not identical, but substantially similar: Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting, a private members' bill, and Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding single event sport betting, a government bill. Both were at second reading and both were very short bills touching the same section of the Criminal Code.

By adopting Bill C‑218 at second reading, the House had agreed to the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C‑13 also sought to amend. This sequencing left the House with a situation where Bill C‑13 could not move forward as long as Bill C‑218 continued its course.

The second example, from earlier this session, described a budget implementation bill, Bill C-19, and a votable private members’ bill amending the Criminal Code regarding the promotion of anti-Semitism, Bill C-250. The latter, introduced on February 9, 2022, contained provisions that were subsequently included in Bill C-19, introduced on April 28, 2022. However, of the two bills, the government bill was the first to be adopted at second reading and referred to committee. One of the key differences was that the two bills were not substantially identical. Bill C-19 was much broader in scope than Bill C-250. By agreeing to Bill C-19, the House de facto agreed with the principles presented in C-250. No decision having yet been made on Bill C-250, the Chair ordered that it be held as pending business until such time as royal assent be granted to Bill C-19.

Finally, the member referenced rulings dealing with two votable Private Members’ Business items, Bill C-243, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, and Bill S-211, an act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff. The two bills had the same objective and only one was allowed to proceed further. The Chair indicated at the time that the case involved an unusual set of circumstances, since normally one of them could have been designated as non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business had the sequence of events been different.

The House leader's main argument hinged on the question of whether provisions contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and therefore Bill C-59 are similar or identical to Bills C-318 and C-323.

Bills C‑318 and C‑323 have been both read a second time and referred to committee, while no decision has yet been made on Bill C‑59. An exhaustive review of its provisions shows that it does contain some similar provisions found in the two aforementioned private members' bills. However, Bill C‑59 cannot be described as substantially similar or identical to them.

Its scope is vastly broader, containing many more elements than what is included in Bills C-318 and C-323, including taxation legislation and provisions requiring a royal recommendation

The bills are similar in part, but are not substantially the same. The principles of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, as adopted at second reading, are indeed included in the broader Bill C-59, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, the decision the House will take on Bill C-59 will not be the same. Accordingly, there is no procedural reason to stop the bill from continuing its journey through the legislative process.

To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first.

I note that the House leader of the official opposition rose earlier today on a different point of order considering the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59. I wish to inform the member and the House that I am reviewing the matter closely and I do intend to come back with a ruling in a timely manner.

Nonetheless, for the time being, the Chair sees no reason to rule that Bill C-59 be put in abeyance. As for the two Private Members' Business items currently in committee, it seems premature for the Chair to intervene at this time.

I thank all members for their attention.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the second point of order is a little more detailed.

I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Tuesday, November 28, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting the inadmissibility of the notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and two items of Private Members' Business.

The crux of the argument by the member opposite is on the principle of a bill at second reading stage. This is the heart of the argument. I would humbly point to the purpose of the second reading debate and the vote at that stage, which is on the principle of the bill.

Before I get into the specific matters involved in the member's argument, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of what a debate and vote on the principle of a bill entails.

Members of the House know that our Standing Orders and practices derive from those of Westminster. If a member would like to look into how debates at Westminster are handled at the second reading stage, they might be surprised. The British House of Commons has 650 members, yet the debate on any government bill at the second reading stage very rarely exceeds one sitting day.

Now I will go to the specific argument raised by my colleague across the way. The two bills in question that are subject to certain provisions containing Ways and Means Motion No. 19 are Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).

With respect to the first item, Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation which would govern the entire scheme of a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents. As a result, the bill cannot come to a vote at third reading in the absence of a royal recommendation provided by a minister of the Crown.

The bill was drafted by employees of the law clerk's office who would have notified the sponsor of this requirement. While I would not want to speculate on the intentions of the member who sponsored this bill, there is little doubt that the member knew this bill would not pass without royal recommendation.

As a result of a ministerial mandate commitment to bring forward an employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents with an accompanying royal recommendation, the government has brought forward this measure for consideration of the House in a manner that raises no procedural obstacle to providing this important benefit for Canadians. It is the sole prerogative of the executive to authorize new and distinct spending from the consolidated revenue fund, and that is what is proposed in the bill that would implement the measures contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19.

Now I will go to the point of a similar question. The example my colleague raised with respect to the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, concerns Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 respecting single sports betting. Both bills contain the same principle, that being to allow certain forms of single sports betting. The approaches contained in Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 were slightly different, but achieved the same purpose. As a result, and rightly so, the Speaker ruled that the bills were substantially similar and ruled that Bill C-13 not be proceeded with.

The situation with Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 bears no resemblance to the situation currently before the House, and the member opposite has been again helpful in making my argument. The member cites the situation with Bill C-19 and Bill C-250 concerning Holocaust denial.

The case with this situation, and the case currently before the House, is instructional for the question faced by the Speaker, which is whether the principle of the questions on the second reading of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, and the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19, are the same.

The answer is categorically no. The question on both Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question should Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be adopted on the implementing of a bill are vastly different. The questions at second reading on Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 are specific questions on the principle of measures contained in those private members' bills.

The question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the bill to implement those measures is much broader. As the member stated in his intervention yesterday, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contains many measures announced in the 2023 budget as well as in the fall economic statement. While the measures to implement the fall economic statement are thematically linked to the issue of affordability, they contain many measures to address the affordability challenges facing Canadians. As a result, the question at second reading on implementing legislation is a very different question for the House to consider.

In conclusion, while there have been precedents respecting similar questions on similar bills which propose a scheme for a specific issue, namely Bill C-13 and Bill C-218, this and other precedents do not in any way suggest that the questions at second reading on Bill C-323 and Bill C-318 in any way resemble the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the implementing bill for the measures contained in the 2023 budget and the fall economic statement.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order challenging the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 concerning the fall economic statement implementation bill, which was tabled earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is my submission that the motion offends the rule against anticipation, sometimes also known as the “same question rule”. That rule is described on page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which reads as follows:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with...If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.

The rule against anticipation has been building a significant number of precedents in the past few years in light of the NDP-Liberal government's growing pattern of stealing common-sense Conservative private members' bills to add to their own legislative agenda. While our authorities suggest that such points of order should be raised only when the second question is actually proposed from the Chair, I recognize that in light of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 being an omnibus proposal, exceeding 500 pages in length, you, Madam Speaker, might appreciate having the evening to reflect on the issues I am about to discuss before the government intends to call it for consideration tomorrow.

In the present case, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 includes provisions that the House has already adopted in principle at second reading through two private members' bills.

On September 20, the House passed second reading Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by the Conservative hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. The summary printed on the inside cover of the bill reads:

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly.

Last week's fall economic statement on pages 43 and 42 states that:

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposes to introduce a new 15-week shareable EI adoption...Surrogate parents will also be eligible for this benefit.

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement also proposes to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, as well as corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while receiving the EI adoption benefit.

Those provisions appear as clauses 342 to 365 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. While the legislative language used varies, the ultimate policy objective and therefore the principle of the matter remains the same as a close examination of the two passages I quoted reveals.

The second private member's bill stolen by the government this week is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, mental health services, sponsored by the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester, which the House passed at second reading on September 27. My colleague's bill would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling from GST. Clause 137 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 would do the exact same thing, except that the government refers to “counselling therapy” instead of Bill C-323's “mental health counselling”. That is, I would submit, a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, I would draw the Chair's attention to clause 144 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 that makes coordinating provisions if each is enacted, which demonstrates the government also sees these as identical measures, but what is especially galling is subclause 144(5), “For greater certainty, if this Act receives royal asset then the other Act [Bill C-323] is deemed never to have produced its effects.” The government would prefer to toss my colleague's important bill down the memory hole. That is just shameful.

Your predecessor, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates, ruled that government Bill C-13 could not be proceeded with further following the House's adoption of Bill C-218, citing the rule against anticipation. In so ruling, the Chair said:

The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper.

The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes....

Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with.

As for the technical differences between those two bills, the Speaker offered a common-sense solution to reconcile them: “the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study.”

I would respectfully submit that if the government has any concerns about the drafting of Bill C-318 or Bill C-323, the solution is to bring amendments to committee, not to bigfoot them by throwing them into an omnibus budget bill, but that is exactly what happened here. It is what happened last year when Bill C-250, sponsored by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, was scooped up by the government and placed in Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill.

In a May 11, 2022, ruling at page 5123 of the Debates, the Deputy Speaker held:

Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions....

The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget.

However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250.

Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

In the case of Bill C-250, the Deputy Speaker directed that it be held as pending business until the final fate of Bill C-19 could be determined. On September 20, 2022, your predecessor ordered Bill C-250 to be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper, given that Bill C-19 had by then received royal assent. A similar pair of rulings occurred on June 6, 2022, and May 11, 2023, in respect of Bill C-243 in light of its overlap with Senate Bill S-211.

While these rulings are all quite recent, they were not novel. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, reached the same conclusion for managing this sort of legislative traffic jam:

Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Standing Order 94(1) empowers and directs the Speaker to, “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business”. That standing order, I would submit, behooves you to safeguard the process of Private Members' Business as much as possible by drawing a firm and bright line for the government to stop poaching common-sense Conservative bills and claiming them as their own.

One final consideration I want to place before the Chair is one that did not arise in the context of the pairs of bills and the precedents I have cited. We are dealing here with a ways and means motion, not a bill. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 568, explain the relevance of this distinction in the role against anticipation:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding.

The associated footnote points readers to other authorities for a fuller explanation, such as the U.K.'s Erskine May. That book's 25th edition, at paragraph 20.13, explains:

...a matter must not be anticipated if contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it was sought to be anticipated, but it might be anticipated if contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion....

This principle was explained matter-of-factly by Speaker Casgrain on February 24, 1936, at page 68 of the Journals: “A Bill has the right-of-way and cannot be sidetracked by a Motion.”

In the circumstances, if the precedents and procedural authorities of this House are to be applied consistently, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 must be put into abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323. I would urge you, Madam Speaker, to so rule.

[Mark Schaan]

We would just bring the attention of the committee to the changes that were adopted in the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, changes that preceded this on the beneficial ownership, where in section 21.301, there is a provision that reads:

The Director may provide all or part of the information received under section 21.‍21 to an investigative body referred to in subsection 21.‍31(2), the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada or any prescribed entity.

By our read, there is a capacity for the director to provide this information to law enforcement.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I accept that the answer to that, properly speaking, is no, but we have on other bills established that as a precedent at this table. It seems to me that if the committee were to consent to defeating clauses on division, it's something we could do. We've done it in the past. We did it, I think, on Bill C-19. I want to say it was that one.

[Gervais Coulombe]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

When the officials appearing as representatives were preparing to testify before the committee concerning Bill C‑47, they studied the content of the bill. The amendments that were proposed and adopted by the committee last year, in the previous budget bill, Bill C‑19, were not part of our preparation for...

Senate Amendments to Bill C-11

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order this morning respecting the government's Motion No. 2 concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-11.

In my view, the notice of motion engages the rule of anticipation and cannot be proposed to the House later today.

Normally such a point of order should be raised when the motion is actually proposed to the House, but given that it is listed on the Projected Order of Business for consideration in an hour's time, the complexity of the issues involved and as a courtesy to you to find some time to prepare a ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise as soon as the House opened this morning.

On March 8 and March 9, the House considered a government motion concerning the Senate's amendments, a motion which is now referred to as Motion No. 1 on the Notice Paper, to which my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge, has moved an amendment.

Flash forward to Friday evening, when today's Notice Paper was published, we see this new motion, Motion No. 2, from the Liberal government. They are both very long motions, so I will spare the Speaker and the House from hearing them each read out loud.

Suffice it to say, I studied them very closely to see what might be different between them. Lo and behold, the English versions of the motions are absolutely identical. When one refers to the French versions, one spots the difference, which is a single instance of a “1” and a “2”, in Roman numerals, being transposed. That is it.

Let me explain for the House briefly what that means. The Liberal government made a drafting mistake; it got its motion wrong. Now it wants a do-over. If one is a golfer, one might call it a mulligan. All this is on a policy Liberals are mistakenly pursuing on a bill they keep botching and on amendments they keep flubbing, and now a motion they cannot even get right, and those people want to control the Internet.

Setting that aside, I will get back to the procedural concern. The substantive effect of these two motions is identical. Indeed, the text in one official language is identical. The words used in the other official language are all the same. It is just two numbers that are transposed.

Having established these motions are, for all intents and purposes, identical, let me refer to page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which explains the rule of anticipation. It reads:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding (for example, a bill or any other Order of the Day is more effective than a motion, which in turn has priority over an amendment, which in turn is more effective than a written or oral question). If such a motion were allowed, it could indeed forestall or block a decision from being taken on the matter already on the Order Paper.

It goes on to say:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), the second may be proceeded with.... A point of order regarding anticipation may be raised when the second motion is proposed from the Chair, if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day.

Though the government House leader might argue that questions about this rule do not come up often, there are a series of precedents through the years that are relevant to the issue before the Chair today.

Mr. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, held, in relation to the rule of anticipation concerning nearly identical pieces of legislation:

...I first considered whether the motion should be accepted to stand on the Order Paper at the same time. I am satisfied that this was quite in order, but I came to the conclusion that it would be quite improper to permit a second debate on identically the same subject matter as the subject matter of a debate which was already proceeding. In other words, the House is not going to occupy itself on two separate occasions under two separate headings with exactly the same business. That would not be reasonable, and I can find no support or authority for following such a course. Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, on July 7, 1969, said, in a ruling found at page 1317 of the Journals, concerning a government motion to amend the Standing Orders, anticipating a motion to concur in a report of the former standing committee on procedure and organization:

I might say, having taken into account the arguments advanced by members of the opposition, that if the honourable Member for Grenville-Carleton had moved his [concurrence] motion I would have recognized that the rule of anticipation would have given his motion precedence...to the motion that is now before the House in the name of the President of the Privy Council. I would have so ruled...

A much more recent predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker, considered the matter of two committee instruction motions that varied by a difference of just five words. The Chair ruled, on June 11, 2014, at page 6649 of the Debates:

Upon examination of the section of O'Brien and Bosc, upon which both House leaders have relied extensively for their arguments, it seems to the Chair that the key concept is the question of whether or not the motions are substantially the same.

Upon examination of both motions on the notice paper, it does seem that the motions are substantially the same and that the principles cited by the government House leader as to the practice of the House are persuasive to the Chair. Accordingly, we will not be proceeding with the motion at this time.

The rule of anticipation is a concept which is not unheard of in the current Parliament, or to you, Mr. Speaker, for that matter.

On May 11, 2022, the Deputy Speaker, at page 5123 of the Debates, ruled that Bill C-250, the private member's bill proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, could not be debated and would be rendered pending, following the second reading of Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill that contained clauses similar to my friend's bill, because:

The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

After Bill C-19 had received royal assent, you made a further ruling, Mr. Speaker, on September 20, 2022, at page 7341 of the Debates, to discharge Bill C-250. In doing so, you said:

...there is a long-standing principle to keep or avoid having the same question from being decided twice within the same session

A similar case can be found in your June 6, 2021 ruling, at page 6142 of the Debates, whereby Bill C-243, sponsored by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, could not be proceeded with following the second reading of a Senate public bill, Bill S-211. Bill C-243 has been listed on the Order Paper every sitting day since, under the heading “Pending Business”.

To recap the current case, the government's Motion No. 1 concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-11 was moved, as I mentioned, on March 8, and then became an Order of the Day. Therefore, Motion No. 2 may only be proceeded with if Motion No.1 has been withdrawn, as the various authorities would observe. Otherwise, proceeding with Motion No. 2 would offend the rule of anticipation and cannot be proposed to the House, as forecasted, at noon today.

Mr. Speaker Casgrain's ruling on February 24, 1936, at pages 67 and 68 of the Journals, explains a possible way forward for the government concerning its Motion No. 1:

The adjournment of the debate, last Thursday on the second reading of Bill No. 2...meant that the question shall again be considered at a future sitting when the order for Public Bills will be reached. This is what is called, in parliamentary procedure, appointing a matter for consideration by the House. [Erskine] May...gives many precedents showing that the discussion of an appointed matter cannot be anticipated by a motion...There is sufficient similarity in the Bill and the Motion to confine them to one debate...The difference in details between the two propositions may be dealt with by moving amendments... but it is not sufficient to justify a duplication of the debate. It is a well known principle that the same question cannot be raised twice in the same session.

The difference between the government's Motion No.1 and Motion No. 2 could be addressed by an amendment to Motion No. 1. It is that simple, really.

All the Liberal government needs to do is allow the debate to continue on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge. Once that debate has eventually concluded and the vote taken, the government could, in the event that my colleague's thoughtful amendment is not adopted by the House, of course, once debate resumes on the main motion, move its own amendment to achieve the change Motion No. 2 contains, which would be up to the House to discuss and decide.

If you were to find my point of order to be well taken, Mr. Speaker, it would not be the first major procedural error the government has made in pursuing its flawed policy to control the Internet. On June 15, 2021, you ruled out of order many committee amendments made to Bill C-11's predecessor in the previous Parliament because the Liberals on the Canadian heritage committee had run roughshod over the rules and broke several of them in trying to rush the bill through Parliament before the opportunistic and unnecessary early election the Prime Minister called that August.

Now it seems that the Liberals are equally hasty in ramming their Internet control bill through the House once again. It is almost as if the government is in a rush to clear the decks for something to come.

I hope you will find in favour of my point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to your response.

Income Tax Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in the statements the member has made, there are some aspects I agree with, and others I disagree with. When we talk about Bill C-241 itself, there are issues with tax fairness within the legislation. There is a lack of safeguards within the legislation that the member talks about supporting. There are some technical deficiencies within the legislation.

I think that, if we take a look, if I may, at Bill C-19, which was the federal legislation that was brought forward, we would see that, in moving forward with the labour mobility tax credit, it does allow for workers in the building and construction trades to deduct up to $4,000 in eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses, giving them a tax credit of up to $600 a year.

The labour mobility tax credit goes a long way in being supportive of an industry. The member made reference to the construction industry in the province of Quebec, and the construction industry in the province of Quebec is, in fact, very important to the government. We recognize that there are many ways and many areas in which, throughout the country, we can look at how we can further enhance and support the construction industry. There is a labour shortage. The member made reference to the kind of actions, and the number of jobs the government created. I think it is worthy of note.

Do members know that over 800,000 jobs have been created if we look at the number of jobs in Canada prepandemic? We can take a look at the number from before the pandemic started, and we can add about 825,000 or 830,000 new jobs since that time. I would ultimately argue that the government has been very successful at ensuring that Canada is in a great position to come back in a better and healthier way when it comes to the whole issue of jobs.

Yes, there is a huge demand for employees in the different regions of the country. There are certain sectors, and the construction area is one of the them. That is one of the reasons why we look at other mechanisms we could put into place to support. Whether it is forgiving the interest for apprentices on federal loans, the enhancement of the labour mobility tax credit, or other initiatives, I believe that it is contributing and making a difference.

We also recognize that immigration can play a critical role in meeting our labour demands, not only for today but also into the future. Further to that, I have always argued that, if we look outside Canada to supply workers, we should also, at the same time, look at ways we can enable those workers to become landed immigrants to Canada. That is something that has been very important to the government.

We have been looking at ways in which we can add to the workforce by bringing in international students. This has had a positive impact in Canada, in many different ways, not only filling literally tens of thousands of jobs, but also adding to the social fabric in which we all live in and have grown to appreciate.

The numbers of, and I use this as an example, international students today, compared to what it was seven, eight years ago, have multiplied significantly, from the 35,000 or 40,000 to closer to 350,000. There are significant numbers of international students who are studying a wide spectrum of issues. The member spoke prior talked about construction jobs, and many of students are taking those types of construction jobs. They are getting an education at our colleges and, in some cases, universities, to work either directly or indirectly in the construction industry.

We are looking at ways to further enhance opportunities for those who want to enter the occupation. There are many examples of low-income families working in the industry. I am very pleased with the fact that we have the federal refund tax credit for the Canada workers benefit program. Tens of thousands of Canadians are directly benefiting from that credit. It is significant. An individual receives just over $1,400 and a family unit receives up to $2,400 to assist workers with a lower income.

We can look at the basic tax exemption. I talk about this because taxation policy does matter and does make a difference. The government has looked at the labour mobility tax credit within Bill C-19 and has addressed many of the shortcomings I pointed out in regard to Bill C-241. I had the opportunity to look into what Bill C-241 is proposing, and I would suggest there are too many technical deficiencies. There is an issue of taxation fairness in some of the areas. There is, in fact, a lack of safeguards, as I pointed out. The sponsor of the legislation can maybe sit down with ministers or others and expand on some of those points.

When it comes to apprenticeship programs and ways we can support labour enhancement, the government has been very progressive in trying to deal with that and enhance it. I have been with the Prime Minister in Manitoba on one or two occasions to look at how we can contribute to enhancing trade and labour in the province of Manitoba. We have wonderful organizations out there that are developing programs.

Earlier today we heard the Conservatives finally get on board with the idea of national opportunities for individuals to be recognized in health care professions and have mobility rights across Canada. They refer to it as a “blue seal”. I suspect they are taking that idea in part from the Red Seal program, which is for tradespeople. Whether it is someone international or someone who takes culinary arts to achieve the Red Seal, it has a profoundly positive impact for that individual.

When we look at the construction industry, there is potential growth in that area with regard to getting recognition from a national perspective. The government, through taxation policies, has been there and continues to be there for the construction industry in particular, but also, as I pointed out, for those who are on the low-income scale. Not all construction workers are able to collect the annual money necessary to provide for a full family or even themselves. That is why we have provided the enhancement of the Canada workers benefit program.

I believe it is important that we use our taxation policy as a mechanism to support families and individuals in different situations. One of those situations is looking at ways we can enhance our labour market and support the people who are working so hard to get ahead in life, particularly by upgrading their skills. Apprenticeship programs are an excellent example of that.