Bill C-50 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget

Part 1 enacts a number of income tax measures proposed in the February 26, 2008 Budget. In particular, it
(a) introduces the new Tax-Free Savings Account, effective for the 2009 and subsequent taxation years;
(b) extends by 10 years the maximum number of years during which a Registered Education Savings Plan may be open and accept contributions and provides a six-month grace period for making educational assistance payments, generally effective for the 2008 and subsequent taxation years;
(c) increases the amount of the Northern Residents Deduction, effective for the 2008 and subsequent taxation years;
(d) extends the application of the Medical Expense Tax Credit to certain devices and expenses and better targets the requirement that eligible medications must require a prescription by an eligible medical practitioner, generally effective for the 2008 and subsequent taxation years;
(e) amends the provisions relating to Registered Disability Savings Plans so that the rule forcing the mandatory collapse of a plan be invoked only where the beneficiary’s condition has factually improved to the extent that the beneficiary no longer qualifies for the disability tax credit, effective for the 2008 and subsequent taxation years;
(f) extends by one year the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit;
(g) extends the capital gains tax exemption for certain gifts of listed securities to also apply in respect of certain exchangeable shares and partnership interests, effective for gifts made on or after February 26, 2008;
(h) adjusts the rate of the Dividend Tax Credit to reflect corporate income tax rate reductions, beginning in 2010;
(i) increases the benefits available under the Scientific Research and Experimental Development Program, generally effective for taxation years that end on or after February 26, 2008;
(j) amends the penalty for failures to remit source deductions when due in order to better reflect the degree to which the remittances are late, and excuses early remittances from the mandatory financial institution remittance rules, effective for remittances due on or after February 26, 2008;
(k) reduces the paper burden associated with dispositions by non-residents of certain treaty-protected property, effective for dispositions that occur after 2008;
(l) ensures that the enhanced tax incentive for Donations of Medicines is properly targeted, effective for gifts made after June, 2008; and
(m) modifies the provincial component of the SIFT tax to better reflect actual provincial tax rates, effective for the 2009 and subsequent taxation years.
Part 1 also implements income tax measures to preserve the fiscal plan as set out in the February 26, 2008 Budget.
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Customs Tariff to implement measures aimed at improving tobacco tax enforcement and compliance, adjusting excise duties on tobacco sticks and on tobacco for duty-free markets and equalizing the excise treatment of imitation spirits and other spirits.
Part 3 implements goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed or referenced in the February 26, 2008 Budget. It amends the Excise Tax Act to expand the list of zero-rated medical and assistive devices and to ensure that all supplies of drugs sold to final consumers under prescription are zero-rated. It also amends that Act to exempt all nursing services rendered within a nurse-patient relationship, prescribed health care services ordered by an authorized registered nurse and, if certain conditions are met, a service of training that is specially designed to assist individuals in coping with the effects of their disorder or disability. It further amends that Act to ensure that a variety of professional health services maintain their GST/HST exempt status if those services are rendered by a health professional through a corporation. Additional amendments to that Act clarify the GST/HST treatment of long-term residential care facilities. Those amendments are intended to ensure that the GST New Residential Rental Property Rebate is available, and the GST/HST exempt treatment for residential leases and sales of used residential rental buildings applies, to long-term residential care facilities on a prospective basis and on past transactions if certain circumstances exist. This Part also makes amendments to relieve the GST/HST on most lease payments for land on which wind or solar power equipment used to generate electricity is situated.
Part 4 dissolves the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, provides for the Foundation to fulfill certain obligations and deposit its remaining assets in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and repeals Part 1 of the Budget Implementation Act, 1998. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 5 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the Canada Student Loans Act to implement measures concerning financial assistance for students, including the following:
(a) authorizing the establishment and operation, by regulation, of electronic systems to allow on-line services to be offered to students;
(b) providing for the establishment and operation, by regulation, of a program to provide for the repayment of student loans for classes of borrowers who are encountering financial difficulties;
(c) allowing part-time students to defer their student loan payments for as long as they continue to be students, and providing, by regulation, for other circumstances in which student loan payments may be deferred; and
(d) allowing the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to take remedial action if any error is made in the administration of the two Acts and in certain cases, to waive requirements imposed on students to avoid undue hardship to them.
Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions with respect to the processing of certain applications and requests in order to support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada.
Part 7 enacts the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act. The mandate of the Board is to set the Employment Insurance premium rate and to manage a financial reserve. That Part also amends the Employment Insurance Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 8 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the recruitment of front line police officers, capital investment in public transit infrastructure and carbon capture and storage. It also authorizes Canada Social Transfer transition protection payments.
Part 9 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to Genome Canada, the Mental Health Commission of Canada, The Gairdner Foundation and the University of Calgary.
Part 10 amends various Acts.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

On the family reunification class, the minister has indicated and you've indicated that this portion of IRPA will be respected, along with the other two categories. The minister has just indicated that the intention for next year is 70,000. I think that is the number she used. Given those numbers, will the legislation we have here and the kinds of things you've talked about doing under Bill C-50 have the effect of processing family reunification more quickly than in the past?

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fadden, the colleague across the way asked a very legitimate question, and I will try to repeat that. Although we did welcome some 430,000 people, about 4% fewer people arrived as landed immigrants. Could you tell us why? And how would the legislative changes of Bill C-50 reverse the spiral, or will they reverse the downward spiral?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm happy to see it doesn't come off my time. That's a good decision.

There is obviously a concern by many that our system is not flexible and does not respond to the economic needs of the country, and with the current legislation the backlog has grown to be what appears to be, by anyone's estimation, almost unmanageable, 900,000-plus and growing. Proceeding through Bill C-50 by way of instruction as opposed to amendments to the act or regulations, in your opinion—either of you here—how is what's happening in Bill C-50 allowing the system to be more responsive? And would it be more responsive than the other methods or not? Would you care to comment on that?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

You've indicated that the administrative decision could be subject to Federal Court review, and there's been some confusion from some of the witnesses about at what stage or point that would happen. But Bill C-50, as it relates to the immigration portion, has to be charter-compliant. Is it correct that they could bring a challenge on the legislation itself if they chose to?

[Richard Fadden]

I know, Mr. Chairman, that we referred to legislation before Parliament; I just don't know if we used the expression “Bill C-50”.

Here it is. I have it now, if you'll give me 30 seconds.

I do not see “C-50”, Mr. Chairman.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

$1.1 million. Is the word “C-50” mentioned anywhere in there?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Well, we're going to get a lot of points of order here.

Mr. Fadden, you were asked, as well as the minister, to provide figures and facts for us of what the expenses were to promote Bill C-50, travel of different ministers, and I was wondering.... You did get that e-mail, I'm sure. Do you have those facts and figures?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

On Bill C-50, then, if we are to send information in terms of instructions, why would we not do it through regulations?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

So the entire $2.4 million is really targeted for Bill C-50?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Getting back to the backlog, in my presentation, I argued that moving someone to the front of the queue doesn't change the actual number of people in the queue or the average wait time. Obviously, the person who has been moved to the front of the queue won't have to wait as long.

Quite apart from the provisions calling for additional resources to be invested in the system, the measure set out in Part 6 of Bill C-50 is not designed to reduce the number of people in the queue, but rather to allow people at the back of the line to move to the front, in order to satisfy our economic requirements.

Is that not in fact the purpose of this provision?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We will try to resume our meeting as we continue with part 6 of Bill C-50.

I want to welcome the deputy minister again to our meeting, and also Andrea Lyon, assistant deputy minister of strategic and program policy, and Les Linklater, director general of the immigration branch. Welcome to all of you today.

I don't have to brief you on what the procedure is, so I'll just pass it right over to you, Mr. Fadden, Mr. Linklater, or Andrea.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

How are the changes contained in Bill C-50, combined with recent funding announcements from your department, going to improve the immigration system and help new Canadians succeed in this country?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I want to thank you for your presentation here in our committee.

I want to say in a nutshell that I have a very big problem with this bill. I'll give you an example. You say in your speech that there are some who are suggesting that this legislation will put too much power in the hands of the minister. The vast majority of the people who appeared in front of this committee believe that's indeed the case. There are not some people; there are many, many people.

The problem you have had right from the beginning is that in your communication you stated that this bill was in fact going to be implemented to deal with the backlog. The reality is--and it's a reality that has been confirmed by many people who have appeared in front of this committee--that your changes will not deal with the backlog. That's number one.

Number two, the manner and form in which you acted as a minister was not becoming of an individual who respects the parliamentary tradition here, or the process, with all due respect. There was no consultation. We had to literally beg that the committee actually study the contents of Bill C-50, as it deals with immigration. That should have been something you should have offered as a minister.

As well, there was a major concern about transparency, accountability, and the lack of resources that exist, and there is nobody who has said these reforms will in fact fix the immigration system. And you have not helped the debate. You have not helped the debate for many, many reasons, and one of them is that you've not been telling the truth all the time.

I'll give you an example. When it came to the issue related to the number—

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Very quickly, Minister, will Bill C-50 have any impact on family reunification and refugee applicants?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Minister, I noticed that actual spending in 2006 on the immigration program is $244.8 million, and in the main estimates in 2008, the immigration program spending is $164.86 million. That's a 32% drop.

Yet for the advertising program, $2.4 million has been put into the supplementary estimates. That's a lot of money for the advertising program. I think $1.1 million has already been spent on defending a bill that the House of Commons hasn't even passed...but that's neither here nor there.

I have listened carefully to all your interviews. You have said you do not want to process dead people, which we totally agree with. One way to not process dead people is to send a letter to all 925,000 people in the backlog and say, “If you don't respond in 60 days, obviously you don't want us to process your application any more.” Maybe a few of them are already dead; I don't know. But that's an easy way to deal with it. Why not do it that way?

Secondly, you have often said you want to get the doctors in, because we need doctors. I've heard that many times. I then looked up the temporary foreign workers program. This information comes from the employers. It specifies the kind of skilled labour they want. I have looked at the kinds of skills employers say they need most in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. In Alberta, it's code number 6242. It's not doctors; it's actually cooks. In 2007, the employers from Alberta have requested 3,343 cooks. Nowhere on this list is doctors.

I then looked at British Columbia and Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Some are asking for maybe 200 doctors, but certainly chefs and cooks are at the top of the list.

So are we doing all of this in Bill C-50, part 6, in order to bring more cooks into Canada, or maybe kitchen helpers? I see that Alberta has requested 6,976 food-counter attendants and kitchen helpers. Next on the list are babysitters, nannies, and parent helpers—5,000 of them. There is a request for 4,000 light-duty cleaners.

Are these the people you're going to put at the front of the list—they're obviously in demand—instead of some other folks? I'm just looking at the documentation in front of me. They are obviously the people we need.

Am I correct in that interpretation?