Finance Committee on April 30th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

What I'm hearing is that we would group clauses 32 to 34, and then MP Ste-Marie wants to vote on clause 35.

Shall clauses 32 to 34 carry?

(Clauses 32 to 34 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 35)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we're at clause 35.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to speak briefly about clause 35 before it is put to a vote. Also, I would ask that it be a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to repeat that my party and I do not support this government's transitional economic plan, because it grants tens of billions of dollars to the oil industry, particularly for carbon capture. What's more, it offers support for and promotes nuclear power, even though we know that small nuclear reactors pose serious risks.

That's why I'll be voting against clause 35 and the subsequent clauses that concern this part. It was to mark the point that I wanted this article to be the subject of a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, I don't see anybody else to speak, so we're going to go to a recorded vote on clause 35.

(Clause 35 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 36)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are at clause 36, and we have PV-1, an amendment from the Green Party.

Mr. Morrice, do you wish to speak to this? Okay.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment amends line 26 on page 160 with the words “2034, 30%, or, in respect of a clean technology property that is intended for use for at least 183 days in any given calendar year, 15%;”.

What we're looking to do with this amendment is to recognize that the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit as it is currently in the bill requires the goods to be intended for use exclusively in Canada. There are companies across the country, like Swap Robotics in my community, that have goods that are clean tech, that are manufactured in Canada and that may be used in and exported to other countries. This would look at allowing for that while reducing the total tax credit accordingly to exclude the time when it's not being used in the country. In their case it's solar-powered vegetation-cutting equipment, for example, that would be included in this tax credit at a lower rate if it were to be passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Morrice.

The chair's ruling is that Bill C-59 amends several acts, including the Income Tax Act, to allow for the creation of a refundable tax credit related to the acquisition of clean technology products to be used all year round. The amendment seeks to create a partial refundable tax credit for goods that can be used for only 183 days in a calendar year, which in effect would create a new category for which a refundable tax credit could be paid out of the public treasury.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme, which could impose additional charges on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Chair, that was a very harsh ruling. I'd like to challenge the chair.

I apologize, because I like you very much, but I found that to be unduly harsh.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, Mr. Chambers, that is your prerogative.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

Thank you.

The question is whether the decision of the chair shall be sustained. If you are in agreement with the chair's ruling, you vote yes; if you are against the chair's ruling, you vote no.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The ruling is upheld. The amendment is inadmissible.

Shall clause 36 carry?

(Clause 36 agreed to on division)

(On clause 37)

We are on clause 37 and amendment NDP-1.

Mr. Davies, would you like to move that amendment?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Before I move it, I'd like to speak to it, because I just want to clarify something.

I have a question for the officials about this section and the words “make reasonable efforts to”.

On page 169, under “Apprenticeship requirements”, in subclause 37(5), it says:

For the purposes of this section, the apprenticeship requirements for an incentive claimant for an installation taxation year are that

(a) subject to paragraph (b), the incentive claimant makes reasonable efforts to ensure that apprentices registered in a Red Seal trade work at least 10% of the total hours that are worked....

Can you confirm for me that this does not require a hard number of 10%? In order to claim the tax credit, it means the claimant simply has to make “reasonable efforts” to do so. Am I correct in that?

[Maximilian Baylor]

Yes. Let me clarify that. The basic rule is that in order for the claimant to get the full tax credit, as you indicated, 10% of the hours that are completed by Red Seal trades have to be done by apprentices.

However, to your point, the rules include circumstances.... One of the things we heard from businesses or proponents when we consulted on the draft legislation was that in some circumstances it can be hard to find apprentices, especially in the current environment. There are labour shortages in some areas, particularly in remote areas. The notion was that if you make reasonable efforts to try to find apprentices to fill in those hours, you can be deemed to have filled those hours. The Americans have something very similar. The idea was to have something similar here.

To complete this, I can be pretty precise about what it means for employers to be deemed to have taken such reasonable efforts in respect of the apprenticeship hours. There are really three things that they need to do.

First, they have to post a job advertisement, including a commitment to facilitate the participation of apprentices in a Red Seal trade on multiple websites for 30 days that are open to both existing employees and new hires.

Second, they need to communicate with at least one secondary school or educational institution that can be reasonably expected to facilitate the hiring of an apprentice position as described in the job ad.

Third, they're expected to communicate with the union that can be expected to facilitate the hiring of the apprenticeship positions described in the job ad and receive written confirmation from the union if they're unable to fulfill the request for the apprenticeship. If an employer does not hear back from the union within five business days from the request, the written confirmation is not required.

To close, these hiring efforts would need to be completed every four months. Now, if they do that and they still don't fill the 10%, they're deemed to have satisfied the requirement.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I have a couple of follow-up questions. Where do those criteria that you just read out exist?

[Maximilian Baylor]

They're in the law.

[Lindsay Gwyer]

They're in proposed subsection 124.46(16) on page 173.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry. I missed that. That's great.

This is my last question. Who would be responsible for enforcing it? Would it be the CRA?

[Maximilian Baylor]

Yes. Obviously, the burden falls on the taxpayer. It is their responsibility to do this and document it. If it's found that they haven't done that, the CRA will....

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That's good. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'm satisfied with that. I won't be moving the amendment. I should have read further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

That one is not moved.

Shall clause 37 carry?

(Clause 37 agreed to on division)

Members, if you so decide, we can have another grouping here for clauses 38 to 71. I don't see or know of any amendments.

Would members like to group those? Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

(Clauses 38 to 71 inclusive agreed to on division)

We have CPC-2, proposing new clause 71.1.

I'll look to MP Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much.

This is, of course, the removing of HST on home heating. Whether you're in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Alberta or Ontario, we've all noticed the additional cost of heating our homes. It's an issue all across the country, but particularly in rural areas, where oftentimes the only option is to heat your home with either oil or natural gas. The cost of heating has gone up dramatically, and heating, in this great northern country of ours, isn't an option.

If the idea, as my colleagues from across the aisle say, is to drive up the cost of carbon-based fuels in order to have people make other choices, and you have no choice but to heat your home with propane, natural gas or oil, it's inelastic. This is just basic economics. My one wish is that we could have an honest conversation about the impact of the carbon tax. I think it would help not only us on the Conservative side but the Liberal members as well.

If we have an individual who is perhaps on the lower end of the economic spectrum, a vulnerable person who is desperately trying to get by in a cold Canadian winter, I think it's a reasonable thing to do to reduce the cost of home heating by simply removing the HST on home heating. This is eminently reasonable. I am against the carbon tax, and our party is against the carbon tax, but it really doesn't have anything to do with personal ideologies with respect to environmental issues. What it has to do with is whether you have compassion.

Do you have compassion for the single mom trying to get to the end of the month in a cold winter? Do you have compassion for the worker who is working overtime just to pay the carbon tax on his gas and his home heating? Do you have compassion for the individual who is perhaps looking at freezing next winter because they can't afford heating?

It's really a compassion test. It's not even an environmental, carbon tax or economic issue. It's a compassion test. I'm hoping that everyone in this committee will pass this compassion test.