Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures

Sponsor

Bill Morneau  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2017 budget by

(a) removing the classification of the costs of drilling a discovery well as “Canadian exploration expenses”;

(b) eliminating the ability for small oil and gas companies to reclassify up to $1 million of “Canadian development expenses” as “Canadian exploration expenses”;

(c) revising the anti-avoidance rules for registered education savings plans and registered disability savings plans;

(d) eliminating the use of billed-basis accounting by designated professionals;

(e) providing enhanced tax treatment for eligible geothermal energy equipment;

(f) extending the base erosion rules to foreign branches of Canadian insurers;

(g) clarifying who has factual control of a corporation for income tax purposes;

(h) introducing an election that would allow taxpayers to mark to market their eligible derivatives;

(i) introducing a specific anti-avoidance rule that targets straddle transactions;

(j) allowing tax-deferred mergers of switch corporations into multiple mutual fund trusts and allowing tax-deferred mergers of segregated funds; and

(k) enhancing the protection of ecologically sensitive land donated to conservation charities and broadening the types of donations permitted.

It also implements other income tax measures by

(a) closing loopholes surrounding the capital gains exemption on the sale of a principal residence;

(b) providing additional authority for certain tax purposes to nurse practitioners;

(c) ensuring that qualifying farmers and fishers selling to agricultural and fisheries cooperatives are eligible for the small business deduction;

(d) extending the types of reverse takeover transactions to which the corporate acquisition of control rules apply;

(e) improving the consistency of rules applicable for expenditures in respect of scientific research and experimental development;

(f) ensuring that the taxable income of federal credit unions is allocated among provinces and territories using the same allocation formula as applicable to the taxable income of banks;

(g) ensuring the appropriate application of Canada’s international tax rules; and

(h) improving the accuracy and consistency of the income tax legislation and regulations.

Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures confirmed in the March 22, 2017 budget by

(a) introducing clarifications and technical improvements to the GST/HST rules applicable to certain pension plans and financial institutions;

(b) revising the GST/HST rules applicable to pension plans so that they apply to pension plans that use master trusts or master corporations;

(c) revising and modernizing the GST/HST drop shipment rules to enhance the effectiveness of these rules and introduce technical improvements;

(d) clarifying the application of the GST/HST to supplies of municipal transit services to accommodate the modern ways in which those services are provided and paid for; and

(e) introducing housekeeping amendments to improve the accuracy and consistency of the GST/HST legislation.

It also implements a GST/HST measure announced on September 8, 2017 by revising the timing requirements for GST/HST rebate applications by public service bodies.

Part 3 amends the Excise Act to ensure that beer made from concentrate on the premises where it is consumed is taxed in a manner that is consistent with other beer products.

Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to allow the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Government of Canada, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into coordinated cannabis taxation agreements with provincial governments. It also amends that Act to make related amendments.

Part 5 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.

Division 1 of Part 5 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to update and clarify certain powers of the Minister of Finance in relation to the Bretton Woods institutions.

Division 2 of Part 5 enacts the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Agreement Act which provides the required authority for Canada to become a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Division 3 of Part 5 provides for the transfer from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the responsibility for three international development financing agreements entered into between Her Majesty in Right of Canada and the International Finance Corporation.

Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to clarify the treatment of, and protections for, eligible financial contracts in a bank resolution process. It also makes consequential amendments to the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act.

Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Bank of Canada Act to specify that the Bank of Canada may make loans or advances to members of the Canadian Payments Association that are secured by real property or immovables situated in Canada and to allow such loans and advances to be secured by way of an assignment or transfer of a right, title or interest in real property or immovables situated in Canada. It also amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to specify that the Bank of Canada and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation are exempt from stays even where obligations are secured by real property or immovables.

Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act in order to expand and enhance the oversight powers of the Bank of Canada by further strengthening the Bank’s ability to identify and respond to risks to financial market infrastructures in a proactive and timely manner.

Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Northern Pipeline Act to permit the Northern Pipeline Agency to annually recover from any company with a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued under that Act an amount equal to the costs incurred by that Agency with respect to that company.

Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Canada Labour Code in order to, among other things,

(a) provide employees with a right to request flexible work arrangements from their employers;

(b) provide employees with a family responsibility leave for a maximum of three days, a leave for victims of family violence for a maximum of ten days and a leave for traditional Aboriginal practices for a maximum of five days; and

(c) modify certain provisions related to work schedules, overtime, annual vacation, general holidays and bereavement leave, in order to provide greater flexibility in work arrangements.

Division 9 of Part 5 amends the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1 to repeal the paragraph 167(1.‍2)‍(b) of the Canada Labour Code that it enacts, and to amend the related regulation-making provisions accordingly.

Division 10 of Part 5 approves and implements the Canadian Free Trade Agreement entered into by the Government of Canada and the governments of each province and territory to reduce or eliminate barriers to the free movement of persons, goods, services and investments. It also makes related amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act in order to facilitate, with respect to energy-using products or classes of energy-using products, the harmonization of requirements set out in regulations with those of a jurisdiction. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act and the Procurement Ombudsman Regulations and it repeals the Timber Marking Act and the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.

Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Judges Act

(a) to allow for the payment of annuities, in certain circumstances, to judges and their survivors and children, other than by way of grant of the Governor in Council;

(b) to authorize the payment of salaries to the new Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta; and

(c) to change the title of “senior judge” to “chief justice” for the superior trial courts of the territories.

It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Division 12 of Part 5 amends the Business Development Bank of Canada Act to increase the maximum amount of the paid-in capital of the Business Development Bank of Canada.

Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act to authorize, in an increased number of cases, the entering into of contracts or other arrangements that provide for a payment if there is a sufficient balance to discharge any debt that will be due under them during the fiscal year in which they are entered into.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

Dec. 4, 2017 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures
Dec. 4, 2017 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures
Dec. 4, 2017 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures
Dec. 4, 2017 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures
Dec. 4, 2017 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures
Nov. 28, 2017 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures
Nov. 28, 2017 Failed Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures (report stage amendment)
Nov. 28, 2017 Failed Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures (report stage amendment)
Nov. 28, 2017 Passed Tme allocation for Bill ,
Nov. 8, 2017 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures
Nov. 8, 2017 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures
Nov. 8, 2017 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures
Nov. 8, 2017 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures
Nov. 8, 2017 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 12:55 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his great speech. I agree with him that the universal child tax benefit is the best idea that has come across this country in a very long time. I am glad that the Liberals adopted that model and possibly improved upon it, although I liked the universal part of it before. It is an income-tested benefit now, which I do not think is as good.

I appreciate the member's comments, but I am wondering if he would give credit where credit is due, as it was our idea.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 12:55 p.m.
See context

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, it was a good half idea, insofar as it was universal. That is the good part. It was not such a good idea with respect to taxing the benefit, because that actually diminishes the benefit of the benefit, as it were.

I think income testing it is not such a bad idea. It is a pretty simple way to do things, because what we want is for the money to be in the hands of the people who need it the most. For people who are earning significant sums of money, this is just free money, and in some respects it becomes dead money because it goes into savings accounts and places where there is not economic activity, or postponed economic activity. As the study in the United States showed, of that $100, the first half goes directly into economic activity and the second half goes into asset building. In this instance, the government has taken what is half an idea and turned it into a whole one.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 12:55 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, today's job numbers show a 5.9% unemployment rate, the best since February, 2008. This is the twelfth straight month of positive job creation and the best 12 months of full-time job creation in 18 years. TD senior economist James Marpel has noted that in the last 40 years, only one other month, December 2007, had an unemployment rate of less than 5.9%. Could my hon. colleague explain the reasons for this?

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 12:55 p.m.
See context

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague would like me to say that it is entirely due to the wisdom and intelligence of our government, but I do not believe that. We are doing well economically. The point I want to make, though, in connecting the Canada child benefit to the extraordinary economic performance over the last 18 months is that the benefit has been in place for the last 18 months, so we are actually flowing this money directly to people who stimulate the economy.

It would be an interesting and important economic study to see what the correlation is between the Canada child benefit and the way the economy has taken off.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 1 p.m.
See context

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, because my colleague has given some of us a bit of a challenge in terms of the relevance of his remarks, I would invite him to show us where in Bill C-63 it expands the Canada child benefit, because it is not in this legislation.

On the topic of other missing pieces, why does the budget not include any spending for new child care spaces, on which people could spend the Canada child benefit money? If we do not have new affordable child care spaces in last year's budget and this year's budget, there is nowhere for working women to spend that money.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 1 p.m.
See context

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have two responses. First, Bill C-63, or the ancillary documents with the bill, move forward the benefit by two years. The anticipated benefit was going to start in 2019 or 2021, but it has been moved forward by two years.

As to child care spaces, the best way to have more of those is for the Canada child benefit to be real and meaningful, providing cash in the hands of parents. Also, the housing benefit that was announced in the last week or two is money that can be directed to all of the needs of parents, who are most able to decide what is of benefit to their family.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 1 p.m.
See context

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose Bill C-63.

Take, for example, last summer's botched tax reform and the supposed tax cuts for the middle class from which hardly anyone benefits fully because a person has to earn $110,000 a year to be entitled to the maximum amount. Then, there are tax havens. I would like to remind members that Canada signed the OECD's convention on tax evasion five months ago but still has not ratified it because the Income Tax Act is full of holes, and Bill C-63 does absolutely nothing to fix them.

I will talk about just one aspect of the bill, which is truly scandalous and has largely been overlooked so far.

I am talking about the cannabis taxation framework. Cannabis will be legal in eight months. At that time, the federal government will no longer really be involved. Quebec will be responsible for health and detox services. Quebec will be responsible for education and prevention. Quebec will be responsible for the administration of justice. Quebec and the municipalities will be responsible for public safety and security. In short, Quebec will be stuck with all of the responsibilities and the costs, and it will cost a lot. All that Ottawa is going to do is issue the production licences. That does not cost a penny. This is how the bill is drafted, and Ottawa will be issuing permits and raking in the tax money. The provinces will take on all of the costs and the federal government will not take on any.

Part 4 of Bill C-63 has to do with cannabis taxation. It states that cannabis will be taxed “under a single Act of Parliament”.

Yes, I said “a single Act of Parliament”. That is what it says in black and white in the new paragraph 8.8(1)(a), as set out in clause 170 of the bill. Ottawa wants to collect all of the tax. It wants to take up all of the available tax room. That is what Bill C-63 boils down to. It cannot be stressed enough that it is the provinces and cities that will be paying all of the costs. Once the federal government gets its hands on all the money, what will happen? If we want to know the answer, all we have to do is keep reading this nefarious bill, which makes it pretty clear.

The Minister of Finance will turn to the provinces and tell them he has gobbled up all the revenue and siphoned off all the money. He will tell them to come and see him so they can talk it over, and maybe he will be able to give them back a small amount. We heard the Minister of Finance say that he might go fifty-fifty. That means 50% for Ottawa, which will have paid for nothing, and 50% for the provinces, which will have paid for everything. Even then, the parliamentary secretary says this fifty-fifty arrangement is not set in stone and will have to be looked at. None of this is very reassuring.

We could end up with a ratio like 95% for Ottawa and peanuts for the provinces. We do not know. That is the problem with Bill C-63. It allows that kind of theft. The Minister of Finance will be free to do whatever he wants, because he will be the one setting the ratio. If this bill is passed in its current form, Quebec will just have to obey if it does not want to be hung out to dry and left with nothing, zip, zero, to pay for regulating cannabis consumption, educating and treating the public, and ensuring public safety.

A few years ago, former Quebec finance minister Nicolas Marceau coined the phrase “predatory federalism” to describe Ottawa's blackmailing behaviour over transfer payments. My good friend Nicolas Marceau, an excellent economist, was putting it mildly. We are seeing that predation happen in real time today, here in this House, in a debate being rammed through under a gag order. Under Bill C-63, Ottawa gets all the money. The Minister of Finance could decide to give some to the provinces, at his discretion and under his conditions.

Paragraph 8.8(1)(a) mentions those conditions. It says that the provinces must abide by the conditions if they want to get the transfer, but it does not say what the conditions are. That will be up to the federal government to decide later on, by itself, without having to come back to the House.

In Quebec, Minister Charlebois has started drafting a plan to regulate cannabis consumption. The Minister of Finance may decide that he does not like Quebec's plan. He might force Quebec to change its plan if it wants a share of the money the federal government gets its hands on thanks to Bill C-63. He might stop the payments if Quebec does something he does not like. This is serious.

Bill C-63 can say all it wants about coordinated cannabis taxation agreements, but the real story is something else altogether. Something agreed to at gunpoint is not an agreement; it is a shakedown. Bill C-63 is a weapon for extortion. Quebec has its hands full figuring out how to regulate this in terms of security, public service, and prevention, all of which Ottawa dumped on its plate, so the last thing Quebec needs is another pointless federal-provincial battle instigated entirely by a federal government that refuses to respect Quebec. The predatory federal government is taking all of the money and using it to make my people and their government do its bidding. I have had enough of the federal government shoving things like this down our throats with its mammoth bills.

A year ago, Bill C-29 tried to make Quebec consumers powerless against banks. The Bloc Québécois was unable to intervene until late in the process, but we moved heaven and earth. The National Assembly, consumer groups, the Government of Quebec, and everyone else protested loudly, and the government backed down.

There was another omnibus bill, another nasty surprise, six months ago. That time, the government was giving a gift to the private investors putting their money in the infrastructure bank. It gave them the right to ignore Quebec's laws, agricultural zoning, and municipal bylaws. Once again, no one said anything in committee, because the Bloc Québécois was not there to stand up for Quebec. Once again, the National Assembly protested, and so did the Union des producteurs agricoles. However, we lost the battle that time. It is frustrating that there are 40 MPs from Quebec who would rather clash with Quebec than defend it. We are facing the same situation today, another omnibus bill that is hiding a scam.

In the committee study, no one pointed out that Ottawa wanted to take all the money from cannabis and use that as blackmail to impose its conditions. No one raised any issues about that during the study of the bill, because the Bloc Québécois was not at committee.

Although it is late, it is not too late. We will very firmly oppose Bill C-63, and we will not be the only ones. As in the case of other omnibus bills, we will have Quebec behind us.

This time we will see whether the Liberal members from Quebec have found their backbones since last year. It remains to be seen. Time is running out.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 1:10 p.m.
See context

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, equalization is a consolation prize. The government is allowing all the ships to be built in the Maritimes rather than in the Davie Shipyard, which has half of all of Canada's production capacity. It is a sorry consolation prize that we are paying for through our taxes, for the most part. It is time we busted that myth.

The government is imposing a new tax, but it is the provinces that will have to cover all the costs related to security, health, and prevention. All Ottawa has to do is sit back and collect money. Buried somewhere in the omnibus Bill C-63 is the fact that the government is going to collect the tax and blackmail the provinces by holding on to all the money if the provinces refuse to negotiate.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised not to introduce omnibus bills. This bill has 318 pages, affects 19 departments, and hides a whole host of things. Frankly, this is disingenuous. I am quite disappointed to see that the Minister of Finance is putting his party above his people.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 1:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

Mr. Speaker, speaking of equalization, is my colleague proud of the fact that Quebec receives so much money through equalization, more than $10 billion? Should Quebec not strive to stop receiving equalization payments? That would make Quebec a “have” province.

Should we not be making sure that Quebec becomes a wealthy province instead of a poorer province that needs higher equalization payments?

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 1:10 p.m.
See context

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, all federations use equalization programs to prevent certain regions from losing their populations to regions with more wealth. In the beginning, the program was developed to help a western province, Saskatchewan, I believe. The objective is to redistribute wealth.

We know the government makes choices based on economic development. These choices benefit the banking and automotive sectors in Toronto, for example. These choices also benefit fossil fuels in the west. In making these choices, the government neglected other segments of the economy, such as the Davie shipyard, which I mentioned earlier.

We are talking about several tens of billions of dollars in the coming decades. Half of this money should normally have returned to the Davie shipyard. If Quebec had received this money in return for the taxes it pays the federal government, we would not need equalization. Quebec could pay.

Equalization is the result of political choices made here and of choices made at the expense of Quebec and my people. That is why we are here to speak out against the situation.

This is about Bill C-63. With all due respect to my colleague from Beauce, he could have spoken about the situation we want to denounce. The government is resorting to predatory federalism and is appropriating another tax. This is what we are condemning. I would be very happy if my colleague supported us.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 1:10 p.m.
See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I take an immense amount of pride in the province of Quebec. In fact, my heritage goes back to the province of Quebec. I have had the opportunity to travel there on a number of occasions.

One of the things I really appreciate, and it does not matter what province one goes to, is that we have such a wonderful health care system. Yes, there is room for improvement. It could always be better. I am wondering if my colleague across the way would also acknowledge just how much the people of Canada genuinely appreciate our health care. That is why the health care accords with the provinces was so critically important.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 1:15 p.m.
See context

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are again moving closure. That is appalling. They said they would do things differently. It is really disappointing.

In response to my colleague's comments, we should be proud of our health system. A member of my family just underwent serious surgery, and I saw for myself the support provided to patients at the new CHUM.

I would like to remind members that, historically, half of the support for health services was to be provided by the federal government. That support has diminished over the years. The small amounts of money added recently are not nearly enough. This points to the problem of the fiscal imbalance and the difficulty the provinces have funding the health system properly.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

December 1st, 2017 / 1:20 p.m.
See context

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government in the House leader, when we forced the vote, which is obviously at the heart of the work we do here, heckled across the way “Jagmeet made me do it”. I am not quite sure what he was implying, what was being insinuated. I do not find it particularly appropriate, so I would ask that he either clarify or withdraw that inane comment.

Bill C-63--Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

November 28th, 2017 / 10:15 a.m.
See context

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-63--Time Allocation MotionBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2Government Orders

November 28th, 2017 / 10:15 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the government is now proposing to rush through a bill, moved by the Minister of Finance, without adequate debate among Canadians, not only about the substance of the bill but the conduct of the minister in crafting it and other similar legislation.

The very first financial legislation introduced in this House by the finance minister was a notice of ways and means on December 7, 2015, that would raise the effective capital gains tax on January 1, 2016, only about three weeks after the introduction of that said motion. Financial advisers told investors that they should quickly sell their shares in order to realize gains before that tax increase would take effect only days later. The result was that the stock market fell by 5% from the day before the introduction of that notice of ways and means until seven days after.

Morneau Shepell shares also fell by 5%, but not before somebody was able to sell their shares in Morneau Shepell and avoid those losses. Someone sold 680,000 shares, worth $10.2 million, one week before the finance minister introduced his motion on the floor of the House of Commons. That person was very wise and had great foreknowledge and ability to project what was to come.

I am asking if the Minister of Finance can tell us who it was who made that sale of 680,000 Morneau Shepell shares.