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.

[Louise Chabot, Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to everyone. I'd like to thank our witnesses for their presentations.

Mr. Beauregard, I'd like to ask you a question about division 32 of part 5 in Bill C‑19, which involves numerous reforms and over 400 pages. It's clear that things are going slowly for employment insurance. We had been promised a comprehensive reform in 2015, but nothing was done, except for minor amendments. In 2019, A major reform of the Social Security Tribunal was promised, with a return to tripartite appeal boards. Today, we find ourselves with this division, which contains the word “tripartite”, but I think that what you're resolutely asking for is the removal of this division from the bill for a separate study.

How would studying it separately facilitate everyone's approval of this bill?

[Mark Agnew]

Yes, I'll try to tackle that as best I can. It's a thoroughly broad question that probably behooves several committee meetings to discuss.

I think the one overarching point I would want to make about it is that when we talk to companies, it's easy for us as policy-makers and people here in the Ottawa bubble to really get caught up on what this level of government is doing, what this silo of government is doing and what that department is doing. It might be three levels of government, but it's one company at the end of the day.

It has to bear the cumulative burden of these things, whether it's on tax decisions, regulatory decisions or the ability to attract talent from both within and outside of the country, or having a much more robust economic competitiveness perspective to how taxes are done, and what the impact is going to be on business competitiveness when we pass a new regulation, and what it means for businesses.

I could sit here all afternoon and list the things that people aren't happy with and where they want to see change in the agriculture sector or the digital economy. It's quite a long list of things, but maybe to bridge back to some of the stuff we're talking about in the context of the budget implementation act, this is where there's a need to make sure we get it right the first time. Unfortunately, some of these competition provisions require a more deliberative approach, and competition policy is one of those things that affects the competitiveness of the environment in which businesses operate.

[Mark Agnew, Senior Vice-President, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Chair and honourable members, it's a pleasure to be here today.

The honourable members would have seen the submission that the chamber made via the clerk, so I'm going to focus my remarks mostly on the competition policy provisions of the budget implementation act as well as the luxury goods tax.

Let me start on competition policy. Given the evolving nature of the economy, our competition policies certainly need to keep pace; however, getting it right is critical. This means robust consultation with stakeholders, including the business community and others in legal, civil society and consumer groups as well.

The chamber is particularly concerned with three elements. It is urging this committee and the government to remove them from Bill C-19 and place them into the mandate of the full Competition Act review that the minister of industry has committed to undertaking later this year.

First is the abuse of dominance provisions and codifying a number of definitions. An overly broad approach to defining what is anti-competitive is particularly problematic because every act of competition may, at least in the eyes of the competitor, impede their progress or expansion. Indeed, an action seeking to outdo a competitor is at the very heart of healthy and necessary competition. Clarity is also needed on areas like privacy, given that we have a separate federal privacy regulator in this country.

While some have argued that these proposals codify existing practice, we should not be haphazard about amending legislation, given that it cannot be then changed back on a whim later on.

Second is the changes made to the administrative monetary penalties. The proposed changes to the AMPs represent a significant overcorrection. Such significant penalties of up to 3% of worldwide revenues are problematic when the provisions are being expanded and companies are left without the benefit of existing jurisprudence to understand what they mean in practical terms. The penalties additionally scope in activities that are not linked to violations occurring in Canada, by virtue of taking a worldwide revenue approach instead of a Canadian revenue approach.

Third, and finally, is the other provisions relating to no-poach. Others have pointed out in separate forums that this poses challenges in the franchise context where companies often have provisions written into contracts as a means to ensure that investments in training their employees are not being undermined. Interactions with provincial labour laws also need to be considered.

I don't have specific amendments to offer today, which reflects the time needed by the chamber to consult our members that sit across different sectors. A few hours of meetings on legislation at committees unfortunately does not suffice for the consultations we hope the government will make as part of the phase two review, rather than putting these three provisions into the budget implementation act.

Despite the assertions made by some that we should make the changes now and figure it out later through administrative guidance or by reopening it in the phase two review, I think that would be a mistake. We don't know what will happen from that review, given that it has not yet actually begun.

Additionally, there may be a tendency to view these Competition Act changes in the context of the current inflationary environment. Unfortunately, these changes will not address current inflationary pressures, so we should not have a knee-jerk reaction with that goal in mind.

I want to briefly end by talking about the luxury goods tax.

Members will be aware from other witnesses who have appeared about what the luxury goods tax means for Canadian aircraft manufacturers. The industry is still in recovery mode from the pandemic and concerns persist, from our standpoint, as to what this tax means for industry. We hope to see amendments made to specific areas of the bill, should the government continue to go ahead with the proposal. This includes exemptions for exports and also the treatment of liabilities when it comes to usage by the buyer after a sale has occurred.

We also need to understand how the tax will impact our competitiveness relative to other jurisdictions. The U.S. experience, of course, was to introduce such a tax, only to then repeal it a short time thereafter.

Thank you for taking the time to consider the chamber's perspective. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

[Luc Beauregard, Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec]

Good afternoon, and thank you for this invitation.

Today, I'm basically going to talk about part 5, division 32 of Bill C‑19.

The CSQ represents approximately 200,000 members, about 125,000 of whom work in the field of education, including higher education. It is the most representative organization for this sector in Quebec. It also has 11 federations, which in turn represent some 240 affiliated unions, and the Association de retraitées et retraités de l'éducation et des autres services publics du Québec, AREQ. The CSQ also plays a role in health and social services, early childhood educational services, municipal services, recreation, and culture, as well as the community and communications sectors. In short, it is everywhere in Quebec.

A few days ago, we told Ms. Qualtrough, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion of our concerns about division 32 of part 5, in Bill C-19, which is about the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal and the Social Security Tribunal, commonly referred to as the SST. We asked her to remove division 32 of part 5 from the bill so that it could be analyzed separately.

The SST was established in 2013 to serve as a one-stop shop to replace four administrative tribunals, including the arbitration boards. Before that, tripartite boards made decisions at the first appeal level for employment insurance clients. This provided better access to justice and the participation of community representatives familiar with the labour market in their region. The appeal structure went from a three-member tribunal, which was viewed as a trial by one's peers, to a single decision-maker who was often remote from the appellant and that person's living and working environment.

In 2019, the government announced in a news release that, further to a recommendation made by KPMG in its report on the review of the SST, reforms would be undertaken. These included a return to the tripartite system to begin in April 2021. The government assured us that people would be at the centre of the appeal process, which would become faster, simpler and better suited to the needs of Canadians. The announcement also said that community stakeholders would be consulted. This did not happen, however, despite our many efforts to remind the departments of our full cooperation.

Bill C‑19 provides that the SST would report solely to the Commission's commissioner. And yet, it is essential that the structure be tripartite to ensure proper monitoring of how the union representatives and employers are deployed and trained to perform their duties within the Board of Appeal, which would not really be tripartite unless the social partners take part directly in the selection and appointment of member workers and employers.

In addition, the right to regional representation and an in‑person hearing is not found in Bill C‑19. The necessary reforms were to be flexible and client-centred. Genuine access to an in‑person hearing was recognized as an essential feature of any reform of the employment insurance appeal process. The presence of members of the tribunal with expertise and knowledge of local markets is essential.

The composition of the Board of Appeal also provides two types of status: full-time members of the tribunal appointed by the Governor in Council, and part-time members from the employers or insured persons, appointed by the commission. This different status is of concern to us because it necessarily leads to inequity between members, in addition to a different hiring status. The full-time members will have status as employees of the public service, strengthened by the fact that they will be the only ones eligible to hold the position of chair, vice chair and coordinating member. The inequity is obvious.

In short, we would have liked to have been consulted beforehand and to have had the opportunity to contribute to the development of the appeal process. The provisions included in Bill C‑19 do not reflect what was suggested and proposed by the government at the beginning of the process. Of course we understand the delays caused by the health crisis, but that should not have prevented consulting the social partners on such an important matter. If no changes are made to the provisions in the bill, we believe that they should be withdrawn and studied separately.

Thank you very much for hearing me out.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gilbert, the changes to the board of appeal proposed in division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19 raise the broader and more general issue of reform of the employment insurance program.

Do you think this bill is a missed opportunity for the government to institute other necessary reforms of the employment insurance program?

Generally speaking, what changes to the plan do you think are necessary?

[Maxime Gilbert]

Yes, “distinct” is the word I was looking for. Thank you.

We feel we've been playing this game for years now. Despite our constantly repeated demands to government after government, we're ultimately stopped in our tracks. The object of our demands seems elusive. We think we're getting somewhere, and when we seem to be approaching our goal, the mirage vanishes and the result falls short of expectations.

Yes, sir, we think it would be appropriate to conduct a distinct examination of this division of Bill C‑19.

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

You mentioned in your opening statement and we heard from the Green Budget Coalition in the pre-budget consultation that you had five main recommendations for government. What kinds of things would you have hoped to see in the budget implementation act if the government had chosen to implement all five of your recommendations?

[Jean-Denis Garon]

I understand. I'm picking up the pace here because I only have a few seconds left.

You also discussed the part-time or full-time status of people who would be called upon to rule on these judgments.

Bill C‑19 allows for a distinction: it would be possible in a way to have two types of judges. Do you see that as a fairness problem?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel, BQ]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.

I'll begin with Mr. Gilbert, from the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques.

I was listening to you, and, unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me the employment insurance program is supported by the money of employers and employees.

For a long time now, we've been demanding a major reform of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada with respect to the EI first level of appeal. As you said, there seems to be a kind of imbalance in division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19, as a result of which employers, employees and unions would not be adequately considered in the appeals process.

I'd like you to tell us about the impact of that imbalance and how we could amend the bill to mitigate that impact.

[Andrew Jones, Executive Director, Government Affairs, Policy and Advocacy, Diabetes Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Andrew Jones, executive director of government affairs, policy and advocacy at Diabetes Canada. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to assist in your study of Bill C-19. I'm looking forward to discussing an important issue for people affected by diabetes that aligns with your current study, which is the disability tax credit.

Before I dive into the details surrounding the disability tax credit, let me tell you a little about the burden of diabetes and a number of federal government initiatives from 2021 that are intended to address this burden.

Many of you will know that Canada gave the world the gift of insulin more than 100 years ago. It's a discovery that ranks among the leading achievements of medical research. Because of insulin, millions of people around the world with diabetes live long lives. However, insulin is not a cure and we are not at the finish line. Recently, Diabetes Canada released new diabetes figures that show a steady, continued increase in diabetes in our country, with 11.7 million people in Canada living with diabetes or prediabetes. Just a decade ago, that number was 9.2 million. That's a shocking 27% increase.

Diabetes continues to affect more Canadians than ever before, despite concerted effort and numerous diabetes-related accomplishments in Canada and throughout the world. There is no denying that diabetes is an epidemic.

The good news is that in 2021, in honour of the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin in Canada and in recognition of the huge and growing burden of diabetes on Canadians, the federal government and all parliamentarians made significant and laudable commitments to improve prevention, management and research in diabetes. Canada proudly co-hosted a World Health Organization symposium on diabetes in April 2021, and jointly with them, launched the global diabetes compact.

The 2021 federal budget contained important commitments to funding research and developing a national diabetes framework. On June 29, 2021, royal assent was received for Bill C-237, An Act to establish a national framework for diabetes, which was unanimously supported by all parliamentarians. These commitments laid a critical foundation that we can build upon to meaningfully reduce the burden of diabetes in Canada by implementing the recommendations of Diabetes Canada's diabetes 360° nationwide strategy.

Diabetes Canada is eager to continue to collaborate with the federal government on this important and urgent work. Diabetes Canada continues to recommend that the federal government dedicate the necessary financial and human resources required to realize the 2021 budget and Bill C-237 commitments to implement a national diabetes framework, based on the diabetes 360° framework, as quickly and comprehensively as possible. Previous stakeholder consultations suggest an investment of $150 million in funding over seven years.

I'd like to also take a moment to discuss with you our concerns surrounding the disability tax credit.

I know our friends in the diabetes community, JDRF, appeared before you last week. You may be comforted to know that our position regarding the disability tax credit is well aligned with what you heard last week from JDRF.

We at Diabetes Canada ask that the federal government consider granting eligibility for the disability tax credit to all Canadians with diabetes who are on insulin therapy. We maintain that the current eligibility criteria that requires a life-sustaining therapy for an average of at least 14 hours per week is antiquated and unfair.

Furthermore, we support recommendation 14 of the Canada Revenue Agency's disability advisory committee. They recommend replacing the current eligibility requirements, including the 14-hour rule, with the following: “Individuals who require life-sustaining therapies...are eligible for the [disability tax credit] because of the time required to administer these therapies.... Without them, the individual could not survive or would face serious life-threatening challenges.”

Insulin therapy is on the recommended list of therapies. We believe that anyone who is on insulin therapy, regardless of whether they are living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, would qualify for the disability tax credit following the advisory committee's recommendation because unfortunately without insulin, they would not survive or they would face serious, life-threatening challenges.

Everyone with type 1 diabetes and some people with type 2 need to use insulin as a treatment. To determine a dose of insulin multiple times a day, people with diabetes must problem solve, make numerous decisions and undertake many activities. These include consulting regularly with their diabetes specialist, checking blood sugar six or more times a day and maintaining a record of the blood sugar levels. With that, they must identify trends requiring alterations to treatment, make complex calculations accounting for such things as the time of day, the amount or type of food they are eating, the activity or exercise they plan to do in the coming hours, how much stress they are under and whether they are fighting a cold or flu.

All of these factors can affect blood sugar levels. Many of these activities are not easily quantified and/or permitted to be counted towards the antiquated 14 hours a week disability tax credit eligibility criteria.

The disability tax credit helps offset costs and enables eligible Canadians with diabetes to manage their condition. We trust that you will amend Bill C-19 to make it easier and fairer for people living with diabetes and relying on life-sustaining therapy to qualify for the credit.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

[Maxime Gilbert, Lawyer, Social Law Department, Centrale des syndicats démocratiques]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope the sound is good. I unfortunately didn't receive the headset on time.

I want to thank you for this invitation on behalf of the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, or CSD, which I represent this morning.

My name is Maxime Gilbert. As mentioned, I am a lawyer with the CSD's social law department.

First, I want to thank you for postponing our appearance. It was supposed to take place last Thursday, but unfortunately, that wasn't possible. We're pleased to take this opportunity today to present our remarks on the budget implementation bill.

Our comments essentially focus on division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19. It's not that the rest of the bill isn't worth a few comments, but CSD wants to review Parliament's response to a demand frequently repeated by many labour organizations. Consequently, I'll be discussing division 32 of part 5, which is entitled Employment Insurance Board of Appeal.

In CSD's view, the fact that the government is finally proposing to reform the employment insurance appeal process is clearly excellent news, particularly since it announced that reform nearly three years ago. Of course, a pandemic occurred in the intervening time, but we are nevertheless pleased to see that action is being taken. However, this division of Bill C‑19 should be amended to ensure that the reform is conducted in accordance with the parameters outlined three years ago and based on the lessons learned from the failures of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, the SST.

We feel that division 32 of part 5 should contain provisions stating that the new Employment Insurance Board of Appeal will report to the tripartite structure of the Employment Insurance Commission, not solely to its chairperson. In our view, the employment insurance appeal process shouldn't return to a tripartite approach solely when an insured is heard. This tripartite approach, which embraces all employment insurance stakeholders, must be part of the entire appeal structure. That would also be consistent with the discussions the government had in the fall of 2018 at the initiative of Mr. Duclos, who was the minister at that time, and with the announcement that Employment and Social Development Canada made in a press release in August 2019, and I quote:

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission will become responsible for first-level EI appeals through the creation of a new tripartite decision-making tribunal called the Employment Insurance Boards of Appeal. As a tripartite organization, the new Boards of Appeal will represent the interests of government, workers and employers, helping put first-level EI appeal decisions back into the hands of those who pay into the EI system, i.e. workers and employers.

Once again, in our view, there must be a direct line of accountability to the Employment Insurance Commission in monitoring the way that union and employer representatives are recruited, appointed and trained and the way they carry out their mandates on the boards of appeal. There must be no repeat of the error made with the SST, which is virtually unaccountable to the Employment Insurance Commission. For the record, when the SST was at its most dysfunctional, the commission was effectively powerless to elicit adjustments from the tribunal or to hold it accountable.

Provisions should also be added to division 32 of part 5 entitling employment insurance claimants to regional representation and to the strong likelihood, if not guarantee, of an in‑person hearing. At the SST, the default hearing, as it were, is by telephone. That trend must be reversed so the default hearing is the one conducted in person. Genuine access to an in‑person hearing has been recognized as an essential aspect of any reform of the employment insurance appeal system.

In addition, we want hearings to be held, where possible, in the region of the insured so that they are conducted by members who are familiar with the regional labour market rather than by members whose conception of that market is too general and thus detached from reality.

To cite only one example that I consider obvious, the actual situation in the regions is quite different from that in the major centres. As far as possible, decisions must take that fact into account and reflect it.

Furthermore, division 32 of part 5 should provide that all members of the board of appeal shall be appointed on a part-time basis. In its current form, the bill provides for some members of the board to be appointed part time and others on a full-time basis. As a result, part-time and full-time members may exhibit different levels of engagement and effectiveness. That imbalance, which seems apparent from a reading of the bill—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting 50 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function and the clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. I request that members and witnesses treat each other with mutual respect and decorum.

Now I'd like to welcome today' s witnesses.

For our first panel from 10 to 11:30, we have the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, and Maxime Gilbert, who is a lawyer in the social law department.

From the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, we have Tim Ross, executive director.

From Diabetes Canada, we have Andrew Jones with us in the room, the executive director, government affairs, policy and advocacy.

From the Green Budget Coalition we have David Browne, director of conservation, Canadian Wildlife Federation; Tom L. Green, senior climate policy adviser, David Suzuki Foundation; and Andrew Van Iterson, manager.

We'll now begin with Mr. Gilbert from the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques for up to five minutes, please.

Monsieur Gilbert, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. Thank you.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

My next question is for Ms. Quaid.

Ms. Quaid, we understand your questions about the inclusion of the first stage of the modernization of the Competition Act in a budget bill. We have also heard from others about this today. We heard from competition experts who told us that Canada's Competition Act was not in line with what was being done elsewhere in the world. According to the minister, Mr. Champagne, those changes stem from the urgent need to act in relation to digital giants.

In your opinion, are the provisions as they are worded in Bill C‑19 enough, and do they do justice to the minister's main objective?

[Benjamin Dachis]

Sure. I'm sorry about that.

With such large potential penalties, there's a risk of over-deterrence, and firms may shy away from practices that may be beneficial for Canadians. These potential fines raise reputational risks for Canada as not being supportive of foreign investment, given that fines will be disproportionately large for foreign multinationals.

The risks of over-deterrence are magnified by the changes in the BIA to allow private parties access to the tribunal to make a complaint about abuse of dominance. Although private litigants do not have the ability to receive damages themselves, the defendants in a privately brought case of abuse of dominance will face a large potential fine that will be paid to the government. This goes well beyond the appropriate role—and there is an appropriate role for private litigation in abuse of dominance—and risks creating “private sheriffs”, where competitor-driven complaints before the tribunal may result in government levying disproportionate fines against parties.

Moving to wage-fixing and no-poach agreements, there are very sound legal and economic reasons to address them. Price-fixing and wage-fixing are economically similar. However, as we've heard a couple of times today, the language of the new amendment is overly broad and creates great uncertainty.

There is uncertainty about whether the term “employee” captures all categories of workers. There's no definition of “employer” and “employee” in the Competition Act. Given the changing nature of employment, as well as the varying provincial definitions of employee-employer relationships, the proposed amendments would benefit from proper consultation with employment law experts directly from the government, rather than what a single committee like this or a single senator like Senator Howard Wetston can manage on their own.

I can get to various approaches on how to deal with wage-fixing in the questions, but William Wu is a real expert on this, so I defer to him in particular.

The last thing on substance is that the identification of privacy as a specific characteristic of non-price competition, separate from product quality, raises particular questions. If privacy is distinct from product quality, what does this really mean? Will competition law cases—mergers, for example—turn on a privacy issue even if competition issues are otherwise unproblematic? Once again, the amendment would have benefited from broader consultation.

Let me close on the core problem, and that's process. The problems of the BIA are reminiscent of similar process concerns that accompanied the legislative changes to the Competition Act in 2009 via the budget process. Some of the proposed amendments in the BIA now reflect legislative fixes to fix that flawed process, yet by following the same flawed process, the inevitable result is an overcorrection and the need for legislative amendments in the future, which, more importantly, do not achieve the government's objective of improving the operation of the Competition Act.

What's the practical bottom line? Carving division 15 out of the BIA would be the right approach. If that isn't feasible, the committee should call for setting the proclamation date for all provisions—not just some—for a year from passage. We also need to hear more from the government on their plans for further consultation, as they promised.

These proposed changes can be seen in concert with other proposed changes that would come as part of a prompt second stage of Competition Act reviews. Proceeding right to these amendments, especially ones that may be unconstitutional, taking force without further consultation could be potentially reckless. We can work out the details of the implementation of changes before they take effect, with a later proclamation.

I'll leave my opening remarks there, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you again for the invitation to speak on this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon.

Welcome to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, May 13, 2022, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of part 5, divisions 15, 16 and 17 of Bill C‑19, budget implementation act, 2022, No. 1.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Those who are here, in Ottawa, know the health rules in effect. Please act accordingly.

I am pleased to introduce our witnesses for today's committee meeting.

First, I'd like to apologize to the witnesses and thank them for their patience. A vote delayed the start of this meeting, and that somewhat shortens the time we'll have for the meeting today, because we must end at three o'clock exactly. I thank you for your patience and co‑operation.

As an individual, we again have Ms. Vass Bednar, executive director of the master of public policy in digital society program at McMaster University. In Ottawa, we have Ms. Jennifer Quaid, associate professor and vice-dean of research in the civil law section of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa. We also have Mr. William Wu, partner, competition, antitrust and foreign investment at McMillan LLP.

From the C.D. Howe Institute, we have Mr. Benjamin Dachis, associate vice-president, public affairs. From the Canadian Bar Association, we have Ms. Elisa Kearney, second vice-chair, competition law and foreign investment review section, and Mr. Dominic Thérien, secretary, competition law and foreign investment review section. Finally, from Unifor, we have Ms. Kaylie Tiessen, national representative, research department.

I thank all the witnesses for being with us.

Ms. Bednar, you now have the floor for five minutes.