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.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for being here with us and for bringing this bill forward.

Speaking for me, and I think for the government, frankly, I think we've demonstrated that we're very supportive of tax deductions for workers. I say that not just in conceptual terms but in tangible terms, through Bill C-19, which was passed by the House and which offers tax deductions for travel, relocation expenses and the like. I think that gives you a sense of where I'm at and where a lot of the members on this side are at in terms of making sure we're supporting workers through tax deductions.

Something like a labour mobility deduction is so supported by members on different sides of the aisle because we understand there's a need to train and retain skilled tradespeople. You spoke to that a little bit in your responses to Mr. Morantz. The deduction that you're proposing in this bill or the deduction that's in Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act, helps to incentivize people to get into and stay in the field.

Another important part of these jobs and the attractiveness of them is the fact that they offer good wages and real protections. A big part of that is workers' rights, which are protected in our Charter of Rights. If there weren't those protections in the Charter of Rights, it's hard for me to imagine that many of the workers we're talking about here today—whom Bill C-19 helps and whom your bill seeks to help—would have the wages and the protections they have today.

You've spoken here in the committee about how you want to encourage people to join the trades and how that's part of the intent of the bill. On that point, I want to ask this: Don't you think there's a chilling effect on Canadians who might think about getting into the trades when they see the provincial government, in this case the Premier of Ontario, using the notwithstanding clause to pre-emptively suspend workers' fundamental rights, which are so essential to achieving the wages and protections that we all believe in?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I want to say a huge thanks to MP Chris Lewis for bringing this private member's bill before us. It is with great happiness that I hear opposition members talk about standing up for workers. This is the party that previously brought in Bill C‑377 and Bill C‑525, which we had to repeal and which were definitely anti-labour legislation. I would also hope there will maybe be some influence from our federal colleagues on their provincial Ontario colleagues in terms of standing up for education workers whose rights are now being taken away pre-emptively using the notwithstanding clause.

In any case, I'm going to focus on this piece of legislation before us.

Mr. Lewis, I've had the true pleasure of being on this committee for a few years, and we've had a number of trades workers come before us and say that it is super important for them to be able to have a certain amount of money to cover their costs in terms of going through the different jurisdictions. They've asked for this for a number of years.

Just over the last year, in our Budget Implementation Act, we implemented the labour mobility deduction, which provides $4,000 per year in tax recognition for eligible tax and temporary relocation expenses, because that has been requested by tradespeople. I'll tell you, we had Sean Strickland from Canada's Building Trades Unions. He applauds the Government of Canada for its support of skilled trades workers in budget 2022, which implemented this labour mobility deduction. He said the labour mobility tax deduction for tradespeople is something for which we have advocated for over two decades, and it will support working Canadians and families to travel to where the work is, helping to address labour availability across the country.

We also heard from the president of the Canada Labour Congress, Bea Bruske, who stated that Bill C‑19's labour mobility deduction was a welcomed step that would benefit workers.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that there is a labour shortage, which all of us are painfully aware of. I want to ask you a specific question and I want to give you a little bit of a scenario, because right now the way the bill is written, as you've proposed, it doesn't require those claiming it to be working in Canada.

For example, even with a 120-kilometre distance requirement, you could have an individual who lives in Oakville take up daily work across the border in Buffalo. In your very own riding of Essex, a skilled tradesperson living in Kingsville could travel to a work site in the west end of Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Canadian taxpayer would be footing the bill if your legislation passed. Under your bill, it would be a better deal for someone to work in Ann Arbor or Flint, Michigan, than in Windsor.

I'm concerned, and I know many others are concerned that this may further incentivize workers living close to the border to take work in the U.S. at a time when we're facing serious labour shortages here in Canada. Can you maybe address this? I know that you've also talked about a worker deficit in the House. Have you received any assurance that this won't further exacerbate the issue by incentivizing those skilled workers who live close to the border to work outside the country?

Statement Concerning the Similarities Between Bill C-250 and Bill C-19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to provide a short update regarding a statement I made on May 11, 2022, concerning similarities between two bills that were before the House at that time. They were Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibition—promotion of antisemitism), standing in the name of the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, and Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

As members will recall, clause 332 of Bill C-19 contained near identical text to Bill C-250. To be more specific, the two bills sought to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code pertaining to hate propaganda, for similar purposes. Both made it an offence to wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust through statements communicated other than in private conversation. There was only a minor difference in the wording of one of the acceptable defences.

As indicated in my earlier statement on this matter, there is a long-standing principle to keep or avoid having the same question from being decided twice within the same session. On May 11, 2022, the Chair had therefore ordered that, pending the fate of Bill C-19, Bill C-250 may not be called for its second hour of debate at second reading.

Bill C-19 received royal assent on June 23, 2022. Accordingly, I am ordering that the order for the second reading of Bill C-250 be discharged and that the bill be dropped from the Order Paper.

I thank all the members for their attention.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

[Anthony Durocher]

From our perspective, we're undergoing a very important review of the Competition Act at this time. The amendments being proposed in the budget implementation act represent a very important start, from our perspective.

However, this phase two, this further review to have a robust discussion and to hear from all quarters of the economy—because competition impacts everyone—and to make sure we have effective competition legislation, is certainly critical from our perspective to protect consumers, SMEs and the economy.

[Anthony Durocher, Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

My name is Anthony Durocher and I am Deputy Commissioner of the Competition Promotion Branch at the Competition Bureau. I am joined by my colleague Krista McWhinnie, Deputy Commissioner of the Monopolistic Practices Directorate.

We are here today to support your study on small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs. The Bureau's long-held position is that SMEs are the bedrock of a dynamic and resilient economy. While many SMEs were hit hard by the pandemic, they remain an important engine of inclusive economic growth. They challenge established incumbents, and disrupt entire industries.

The Competition Bureau enforces the Competition Act, which recognizes the vital role of SMEs at the outset in its purpose clause. It states that “maintaining and encouraging competition” is central to ensuring that “small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy.”

We work hard to support SMEs. For example, we stop any anti-competitive business practices that seek to limit SMEs from challenging bigger players. We require businesses to tell the truth about their products and services, so that consumers aren't misled away from using the products and services of SMEs. We prevent any competitive mergers and punish price-fixing and other forms of collusion to ensure that SMEs can access inputs at competitive prices. We advocate for government rules that ensure a level playing field for SMEs.

To achieve these goals, we need the right tools to address competition issues in a timely and effective manner. The Competition Act amendments set out in the budget implementation act are an important step, but those changes are just the beginning. We are very pleased that the government has committed to consult broadly on the role and functioning of the Competition Act and its enforcement regime. In February of this year, we made a public submission to Senator Wetston's consultation on modernizing the Competition Act. The ideas put forward are based on our experience in administering and enforcing the law across all sectors of the economy.

The bureau remains focused and motivated in its role as Canada's competition authority and looks forward to an ongoing, vigorous and inclusive debate on how best to achieve these goals.

We look forward to your questions.

Government Policies

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, airports are in chaos. The passport office is snowed under. Inflation is out of control. Ministers are misleading Parliament. The government's current priorities are an incoherent mess.

Bill C-5 would drop sentencing requirements on violent offenders and drug traffickers and open the door for sex offenders to serve community sentences near their victims. Bill C-21 pretends to address gun violence, but literally only affects people who obey Canada's existing strict firearms laws. Bill C-19 would remove any pretense of fiscal control from the undisciplined and unserious government. Bill C-11 is a bill that would give the CRTC the power to control what Canadians find and post on the Internet. None of these bills would do anything to fix any of Canada's serious problems.

If these are the government's priorities for the next two weeks, I suggest it quit now and spend the summer coming up with a real agenda to help Canadians.

[Christiane Fox]

Mr. Chair, I don't have the bill number, but it's part of the budget implementation act.

[Sara Anghel, President, National Marine Manufacturers Association Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Sara Anghel. I'm the president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association of Canada. I'm appearing today to speak against the luxury tax on boats included in Bill C-19. I realize the bill received third reading yesterday, but I think it's very important the committee hear our concerns.

Our industry is made up of mostly small businesses and, in many cases, family-run businesses. These include recreational marine manufacturers, dealers, marinas and service providers. The industry has a GDP impact of $5.6 billion, $10 billion in revenue, and employs 75,000 people across Canada.

Our industry has faced many headwinds since the start of the pandemic. Supply chain disruptions, production delays and inflation have affected our members. Tourism and recreational businesses were closed for months due to pandemic restrictions and border closures. On top of that, we are now facing an impending luxury tax on boats.

Our industry understands the government's need to raise revenue in the wake of the pandemic, but the luxury tax is not the way to achieve this. The history of luxury taxes shows that consumers will simply choose to take their discretionary spending elsewhere. That is what dealers and manufacturers are hearing from customers. The result will inevitably be a dip in revenue and hundreds or even thousands of job losses across the country.

According to an economic impact study by economist Dr. Jack Mintz, the proposed tax will result in a minimum $90-million decrease in revenues for boat dealers, and potential job losses of at least 900 full-time equivalent employees. In short, the tax will hurt the very middle-class families that the government is trying to help.

The problem with this kind of tax is that it can easily be avoided by consumers by either buying goods or purchasing and keeping their boats abroad, for example, in Florida or Seattle. The expected drop in sales will significantly impact the bottom line of manufacturers and dealers, who will then be forced to scale back their operations and staffing levels.

While we saw a boom in boat sales during the pandemic, the supply chain disruption has been very difficult for our industry and, in fact, dealers are expecting a significant drop in sales due to material shortages. An Ontario-based dealer, Crate's Lake Country Boats, in Orillia, expects a drop of 70% in sales by the end of 2022, and that doesn't account for what will happen once the tax is in place.

We can also expect a ripple effect on job losses at marinas and service shops. Fewer new boats sold means less work for the marine service industry, much of which is concentrated in rural and coastal communities.

In the early 1990s, the U.S. introduced a similar luxury tax on boats, which devastated the industry and was eventually repealed following the loss of thousands of jobs and a net revenue loss for the government. New Zealand, Italy, Norway, Turkey and Spain have all previously introduced luxury taxes on boats. In each one of these cases, the tax was ultimately repealed due to the net negative economic effects. There is no reason to think the same will not happen here.

We're also troubled by the singling out of recreational boats and not other recreational products. Boating is a cherished pastime for millions of middle-class Canadian families, and in this unaffordable recreational property market, many families choose to purchase a boat as their cottage. At a time when governments are trying to attract investment and rebuild our economy, a tax that guts homegrown manufacturing and retail businesses makes no sense. Instead of supporting our industry as a vital part of Canada's recovery, this tax is picking winners and losers in outdoor recreation.

The luxury tax also has the potential to damage Canada's trade relations. Concerns have been raised by the boating industry in the United States that this tax directly attacks our Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement. Similarly, our trading partners in the U.K. and European Union could be hurt by what many see as an indirect tariff on boats.

In conclusion, I want to draw attention to the latest report released by the PBO, stating that there will be 2.9 billion dollars' worth of lost sales from boats, aircraft and cars. However, $2.1 billion of that, which is 75% of the loss, is expected to come from boats. This is a complete assault on the boating industry.

I saw that there was an amendment passed removing the September 1, 2022, implementation date for the aerospace industry. If 75% of the loss is expected to come from the boating industry, it would be only logical to have a similar amendment for boats, to save jobs and not decimate the industry in Canada.

Thank you for the time.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn to the amendment of the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to the motion at third reading of Bill C‑19.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 8, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pride to rise in the House of Commons to talk about the budget and how it would strengthen communities like mine in Windsor—Tecumseh.

Budget 2022 is first and foremost a jobs budget and a workers budget, and it is a budget that would make life more affordable for millions of Canadians.

This spring, I was proud to stand on stage with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Innovation to announce two once-in-a-generation investments in my community. The first was a $5-billion investment by Stellantis and LG to create a battery plant that would create 3,200 good-paying auto jobs. The second announcement was a $3.7-billion investment at the Windsor assembly plant that would bring back the third shift and create another 2,000-plus auto jobs.

Taken together, this almost $9-billion investment represents the largest auto investment in the history of Canada, and it represents the largest-ever investment in the history of Windsor—Tecumseh. Those two investments would create over 5,500 jobs in my community, cement Windsor-Essex as the automobile capital of Canada, and secure the prosperity of Windsor-Essex for generations. That was made possible, first and foremost, because we have the best and most skilled workforce that builds things better than anyone else in the world, and second, because our federal government has made historic investments in fighting climate change, well over $100 billion, and that includes investments in the transition to a zero-emission future.

This budget continues those historic investments, which are transforming Windsor—Tecumseh into a leader in the green transition. That includes a $15-billion Canada growth fund to leverage private sector investment in the clean-tech sector. We could ask our friends at WEtech Alliance and Invest WindsorEssex how important capital is to growing and attracting good, clean-tech jobs and businesses. It also includes $1.7 billion in incentives for the zero-emission vehicles program, because we want to encourage Canadians to buy electric vehicles built by Canadians in communities like mine.

More than just electric vehicles, our community has an opportunity to be a leader in the protection of Canada's lakes, rivers and oceans, including the Great Lakes. There is an awesome opportunity for Windsor—Tecumseh in Canada's blue economy. The Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research at the University of Windsor is Canada's leader in Great Lakes and clean water research. It will have a key role to play in the newly established Canada water agency, which would be up and running in 2022, thanks to this budget. The potential to build a modern research and innovation hub for clean water technology in Windsor—Tecumseh is enormous. This budget opens that door through the clean water agency and the creation of a Canadian innovation and investment agency.

Speaking of water, I had the opportunity recently to tour the docking, fuelling and warehousing facilities of companies operating along the Detroit River at the port of Windsor, companies like Morterm and Sterling Fuels. Through this budget, and the last, we are investing $2.4 billion in the national trade corridors fund that has the potential to supercharge ports like Port Windsor into a true multimodal transportation hub in the North American supply chain. That means more jobs and more investments back home.

As we create thousands of jobs locally and generate billions of dollars of investment across Windsor-Essex, we will have to turn our attention to two growing challenges. The first is affordable housing. Like many communities across Canada, Windsor—Tecumseh has a housing crisis. One important piece of the puzzle is to build and renovate more affordable housing. In just the last two years, I was proud to announce over $200 million for affordable housing in Windsor-Essex. That is a record for affordable housing in Windsor-Essex. We know that more needs to be done, and more needs to be done faster. This budget launches a new $4-billion housing accelerator fund to help municipalities like ours build more homes faster. To help more people purchase their first home, we introduced the tax-free first-home savings account and a homebuyers' bill of rights.

The second challenge we will face, especially as our local economy ramps up, is the need for skilled workers. We are seeing labour shortages across Canada. We will need more apprentices and more skilled workers to construct homes and build electric vehicles, batteries, charging stations and other infrastructure. I was proud last week when our government announced the $247-million investment to establish a new apprenticeship service that would create over 20,000 new apprenticeships by providing small and medium-sized businesses with up to $10,000 to hire a new apprentice. At the same time, in this budget, we are doubling the union training and innovation fund, because we know that unions like the IBEW, LiUNA, UNIFOR, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners know how to train skilled workers for today and tomorrow.

Since my election, I have been pushing hard to put more money into the pockets of skilled workers, including those who have to travel out of town to a job site. I am pleased to see a labour mobility deduction in this year's budget that will allow skilled workers and apprentices to deduct $4,000 of travel and temporary relocation expenses.

Of course, what is going to make life more affordable for so many families and allow so many moms and dads to go to work or go back to school to gain the skills they need is our federal government's historic $10-a-day child care plan.

Communities like mine in Windsor—Tecumseh are entering a golden age of prosperity. No doubt there are many challenges ahead, but we are a community that pulls together, neighbour looking after neighbour. With historic investments and leadership by this federal government, we are ready to meet those challenges and take full advantage of the opportunities. That is why I suggest we support Bill C-19.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to share my thoughts on Bill C-19. Like many members in the House, we have carefully examined the many clauses included in this piece of legislation, which implements many of the changes announced by the government in its budget.

The devil is in the details, and I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues for their vigilance, because the amendments were important, and the organizations that contacted us wanted to be heard loud and clear. I particularly want to congratulate my colleague from Joliette and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville.

There are times when our actions really matter. Small industries, especially our SMEs, often bear the brunt of measures that are not adapted to their reality, and we must be vigilant. I can assure the House that we have put a great deal of effort and resources into reviewing the proposed changes and doing the necessary checks. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is possible to be prudent, rigorous and innovative at the same time. While our goal is to get everything for Quebec when the current crises are over, the Bloc Québécois is determined to secure as much as possible for Quebeckers.

The Bloc Québécois carefully went through every clause of the bill, as it always does. It voted in favour of the parts that are good for Quebec and voted against the parts that are not good for Quebec, and it tried to improve the parts that could become good for Quebec, in particular for charities.

Last week I spoke about some of the challenges that charities told us about during recent consultations. I am very happy that we were able to build on a solid foundation to make it easier for charities to sign co-operation agreements with organizations not recognized as charities. This will ensure that charities are not needlessly overburdened and can concentrate on their missions.

With Bill C‑19, the version amended by the Bloc Québécois, we join other countries that have taken similar measures to support charities better. The original version of Bill C‑19 introduced by the Liberal government did not adequately respond to what charities had asked for.

I now want to talk about mead and cider. I want to acknowledge David Ouellet, from Miellerie de la Grande Ourse in Saint‑Marc‑de‑Figuery, and the folks at Verger des Tourterelles in Duhamel‑Ouest.

I would like to clearly explain the importance of the amendments made by the Bloc Québécois to Bill C‑19, especially in response to the request by mead and cider producers to exempt these products from the excise tax. Many members here in the House urged the government to help the restaurant and tourism industries, as well as our honey producers, maple syrup producers, berry farmers and many other sectors of our economy.

This is a fine example of a Bloc Québécois amendment that provided desperately needed breathing room. I am certain that we managed to stave off the closure of many businesses across Quebec. Peripheral sectors and businesses such as apple farmers, bee farms, the tourism industry and the restaurant sector will be the better for it.

I have a word of caution for fly-in, fly-out workers. One of the measures I am worried about is the labour mobility deduction for tradespeople who temporarily relocate to a job site. This measure would let people who temporarily work away from their home deduct a portion of their travel and accommodation expenses. It will reduce the pressure that the labour shortage is putting on several sectors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue in the mining industry and construction.

What we do not want, however, is for our region to become a fly-in, fly-out destination. We need to ensure that people settle in our area, that they live there and become proud and strong Témiscamingue people. The wages paid must be spent in local businesses. That is how we develop our territory, how we live in it and how we help small and medium-sized businesses become large corporations.

I already explained all the effects of this kind of measure when we studied another member's bill in the House. I would remind everyone that there is a serious housing shortage in Quebec and that these kinds of measures can put additional pressure on the rental market.

If we make it easier for these temporary workers to come to our regions, they will surely want to stay after getting a taste of what we have to offer. I can assure the House that that is definitely the case in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, where people want to stay and build their dreams with their feet on the ground. There they can live it up in Sainte-Germaine-Boulé, attend a secret show in an alley in Rouyn-Noranda at the Festival de musique émergente, enjoy the view of the majestic Lac Témiscamingue in Ville-Marie or taste the incredible quality of the agri-food products of the Amos region.

Another thing I would like to talk about is division 15 of Bill C‑19, which is about the Competition Act. On May 20, after I moved a motion in this regard, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology studied this section and heard from numerous witnesses. I think reluctance on the part of those who just spoke has to do with the fact that there were no real public discussions about the measures the government is imposing in this budget bill. As a matter of fact, all the witnesses were surprised to see this section in a budget bill instead of in a bill of its own.

As for the public debate, some people simply want to maintain the status quo in terms of competition. Others say that it is high time changes were made. I think my colleagues know where the Bloc stands. The message needs to be tailored and crystal clear. There must be strict rules that allow for real competition. We are in favour of meaningful reform of the Competition Act as long as it is a comprehensive, transparent process.

Where are things going in the realm of competition? Here are some thought from the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau:

An important conversation is taking shape about the role of competition in the Canadian economy. It's occurring against a backdrop of increasing concerns about the rise of corporate titans and the changing nature of our digital marketplace. New thinkers have engaged in the debate.

As MPs who are members of this committee, we noted the deep concern of some people who testified. We did not change the coming into force date of this section of the bill, in order to give the Competition Bureau the opportunity to include all the elements required to implement these changes. Everyone expects a firm commitment and swift action from Commissioner Boswell, and everyone agrees that it is urgent that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry introduce a new bill on competition.

Significant amendments were proposed as a first step. They would enhance the Competition Bureau's investigative powers, criminalize wage-fixing and no-poach agreements, and increase maximum fines and administrative monetary penalties. They would clarify that incomplete price disclosure is a false or misleading representation. The amendments also would 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.

In conclusion, it is getting late, so I would like to sum up my thoughts on this bill. I wish I could say that all these measures will achieve the results that our constituents are hoping for. With the time I was given, I discussed only a few of the measures set out in the 400 pages of this bill. In this case, we tried to improve it as much as possible in the limited time we had, due to closure. We will have to be twice as vigilant and listen even more to the people in our communities.

Fortunately for the people in my riding, the Bloc Québécois is able to promote its recommendations. Again, the government was caught off guard. It tried to bury measures in a 400‑page tome. I can guarantee that, especially under the watchful eye of my colleague from Joliette, anything we missed this time will get picked up during the next round of legislative amendments.

I want to mention that introducing elements in a massive bill instead of having substantive, transparent debates in parliamentary groups always has dangerous consequences. Many people came to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology to tell us that.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

We are heading into the final hour of Wednesday, June 8. I am pleased to be spending the final moments of this day with my colleagues. I want to thank them in advance for their rapt attention.

We are here tonight to discuss Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures. I would like to review the timeline. This bill has come back from committee. First, there was the budget. There were many things about it that bothered us, so many, in fact, that we could not support it. Voting against it was our only option. The bill contained a significant amount of intrusion, interference, and federalism pervaded. That rampant federalism would have steamrolled our jurisdictions and dictated the terms. There would have been interference here, there and everywhere.

There were also some things that were frustrating because they were not in the budget, such as health. I am not big on whataboutism. People cannot just say there is this thing but not that thing. They cannot just say that there is no actual debate on health. They cannot say that we have not moved forward, that we have not pressed the issue, that we have not been talking about it for quite some time. When I say “we”, I am not just talking about the Bloc Québécois. I am talking about all the provinces, which are united. It is Quebec too. The National Assembly has passed so many unanimous motions on this. They cannot say the government might be surprised when we raise this issue. They cannot say we are coming out of left field. No, we have been talking about this for a long time. It is a problem.

We are at the tail end of a public health crisis—or let us hope so, anyway—that did not create the situation. No doubt it exacerbated it, but we have long been aware of skyrocketing health care costs. We have known for some time that it is up to the provinces to hire doctors, nurses and PSWs and that the money is tied up in Ottawa.

As we know, funding has been cut for quite some time. In the 1990s, Ottawa made its surpluses on the backs of the provinces. Since then, the provinces have had to fight like hell to be able to fund their health care services and social services in general.

There was nothing for seniors, either. As everyone knows, there was the infamous last-minute pre-election cheque last summer, but only for those aged 75 and over. Because of inflation, the cost of living is going up, so pensions also need to increase permanently. By the way, one is a senior as of age 65. A permanent increase in the pension is needed, but there is nothing about that in this legislation.

One could argue that some funding has been allocated to housing, but we are a long way from sustainable, significant and really strong investments that would actually compensate for the current crisis.

The Bloc Québécois advocated for an annual reinvestment of up to 1% of public funds. I do not think that is unreasonable. Money also needs to be diverted so that it does not always go just to private developers, but also to groups that are familiar with the real needs on the ground, such as not-for-profits, housing co‑operatives, and community organizations. The whole financial structure needs an overhaul. There was nothing on any of that. We were unable to support the budget because of what was in it and what was not in it.

Then came the budget implementation bill. We supported it, but with reservations, saying that we would see what came out of it. We would study it, look at it, analyze it. There are committees for that, such as the Standing Committee on Finance. I commend my colleague from Joliette, who is our finance critic and did this work patiently and conscientiously. He did some extremely serious work on this issue.

Several irritants were removed from this implementation bill, which contains some things that we want to improve and that make it possible for us to continue supporting it.

Let us talk about the excise tax. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade, and the excise tax is a subject that I am very familiar with.

As a result of a complaint filed by Australia, the excise tax will once again be charged on all Canadian wines, effective July 2022, after having been exempt since 2006. This tax does not distinguish between grapes, apples and honey, but why should it apply to all wines, including mead and cider, when these last two products were not the target of Australia's complaint?

Mead production is small. The association of cider producers was established in 1992 and has 81 voluntary members. It testified before the Standing Committee on Finance.

Cider production rose from 3.2 million litres in 2016 to 5.1 million litres in 2021, an increase of 60% in five years. The market for cider is booming. This is a nod to the past, because, I remind members, cider was popular in New France. People started drinking beer after the conquest. The beer was not always good, but we have made up for that with microbreweries, which make very good beers.

Cider and mead, or honey wine, will suffer because of the excise tax. I do not understand how the government was unable to make a distinction between honey made by bees in their hives, apples and grapes. It makes no sense to me, especially because, in a similar legal battle with Australia, the Government of Quebec was able to exclude different products that were not standard wine varieties.

Clearly, each country is going to want to promote and protect its own producers and wines. However, Canada should not be penalizing an entire industry because of the government's incompetence and inability to differentiate. We would usually talk about not comparing apples to oranges, but in this case, it is a question of not comparing apples to grapes. What a ridiculous farce.

In the little bit of time I have left, I would like to talk about an unresolved issue, the infamous luxury tax. We support the principle of the luxury tax, taxing the ultrarich, banks, oil companies and their profits as inflation rises. As I said yesterday, our inflation is their loot. The issue we have is that the tax is flawed and very poorly designed, as it will penalize SMEs and the aerospace industry, which is flourishing in Quebec.

I started hearing from the industry about this a year ago. I realized at the time that there was a problem with the wording of the tax. Since then, stakeholders have asked the government to do an impact study, but it has refused. Now, the government can no longer justify pursuing this fallacious, erroneous, catastrophic plan that will penalize an industry that is just as important to Quebec as the auto industry is to Ontario.

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

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague and thank him for his speech, especially for his extraordinary use of French. I also salute Yukon's francophone community.

In Bill C‑19, there is a part about the luxury tax that targets boats and aircraft, including planes, small planes and helicopters.

I would like to know whether my colleague has been contacted by any of his constituents about this and whether he is concerned that this may have a negative impact on the economic activity in some parts of his territory.