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.

Bill C-19—Notice of Time Allocation

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Taxation

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

Madam Speaker, the luxury tax in Bill C-19 misses the mark. Rather than targeting wealthy people who are buying private jets, it taxes Quebec's aerospace industry. My Liberal colleague knows this. Two weeks ago she promised “to ensure that this does not hurt our manufacturers”, but since then, her government has voted against all of our amendments that would fix the problem.

Taxing the rich is fine, but taxing the flagship of the Quebec economy instead is out of the question.

When will the Liberal members from Quebec get to work and protect our aerospace sector?

Motions in amendment

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned earlier how much consultation the government has done, especially on Bill C-19.

Yes, I would agree that consultation was fairly extensive. The problem, however, is that the general consensuses that came out of those consultations are not reflected in the bill, as if there had been no consultation. For instance, the section on employment insurance was removed. The same should have been done for the luxury tax and several other aspects, such as the Competition Act.

When will the government start actually paying attention to consultations and ensure that they are reflected in budget implementation bills?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at report stage to discuss the changes that were made to the bill at committee and a further change that I am proposing in the House at report stage.

I think often, when we reflect on budget bills and we talk about omnibus budget bills, we think of the experiences Parliament has had under majority governments with omnibus budget bills, where we have seen quite a lot of changes to many acts rammed through without a lot of discussion or debate because the government had the majority in order to be able do that.

I think we actually saw quite a different process in this Parliament with the budget bill. This is reflected in the fact that the committee made significant changes to the disability tax credit, which would make it possible for people living with type 1 diabetes to not have to constantly reprove that they still have type 1 diabetes, that it is still expensive and that it is still time-consuming. We can take it for granted, based on what we know about the disease, that people living with type 1 diabetes are going to continue to need support, and they will continue to deserve the kind of support they get. When they are able to accomplish all of that administrative work, they should only have to do it once. The committee looked to make that the case, and I hope Parliament will soon too.

We saw the government introduce quite hastily some major changes to the employment insurance appeal board that did not reflect its commitments in 2018 and 2019 to stakeholders. After a long consultation process, the government was panned pretty widely within the stakeholder community. I think even the government was interested in pulling those provisions back. We have secured a commitment from the government to ensure it comes back in the fall with new legislation and that this is not the end of the story when it comes to the EI appeal board. It is in desperate need of appropriate reform. We were glad to see the government commit to bringing that legislation forward in the fall. We will certainly be here to remind it of that commitment and to press it to do that as promptly as possible in the fall.

We saw important reforms in the direction and control provisions for charitable organizations. These really needed to be undertaken to decolonize the charitable sector in Canada, facilitate its good work and ensure it can work with partners that may not have a charitable status but that are nevertheless doing good work. I think this shows not a blind trust but an earned trust on the part of the charitable sector in Canada for the very good work it has done, and done responsibly. I think we struck the right balance between ensuring that there is still the reasonable accountability that Canadians would expect of their charitable sector while ensuring that it has a freer hand to do work in a good way.

We saw the government also try to rush in some changes that had not been advertised with the express entry system. The express entry system allows for people outside of Canada to come into Canada on an expedited basis. The minister was asking for an incredible amount of discretion with a very low amount of accountability and transparency concerning how decisions would be made to classify people in the express entry system and get them into the country. Through working together with other parties at committee, we were very glad to see, and I have to give credit to the member for Vancouver East, who really did the legwork on this, a proper accountability regime that would require the government, in the legislation, to have a robust public consultation process. This is actually spelled out in the legislation and will not be left just to the government to decide what public consultation will mean. Written submissions would be required, so it would not just be the government having backroom conversations with some of its friends to decide who gets into the country, who does not and on what basis. There is going to be a proper process in place. I think that is very important.

On the theme of fiscal accountability for government, which is something I have tried to champion here in my time, there was some spending the government had proposed in Bill C-17, which was incorporated into the budget, with transit and housing money being sent to provinces. however, there was really no detail beyond that. We fought for an amendment that would require the government, after it has negotiated the terms and conditions with provinces, to make those public because we think that is appropriate. Canadians have a right to know how their public money is being spent and under what conditions it is being passed on to other governments, so that was also very important.

As the Conservative finance critic mentioned earlier, there was also an amendment he proposed to set the date for when the foreign homebuyer ban would come into effect, which was something I was glad to support, to give a little more certainty with that. We were also able to finally make a distinction in Canadian law, as a result of an amendment put forward by the Bloc finance critic, between cider and honey wine on the one hand and grape wine on the other, which is a distinction that has become that much more important in light of the recent arrangement with Australia following its challenge at the World Trade Organization.

I say all of this by way of trying to highlight the extent to which there was a good process with the bill. I think that the committee was able to have much more meaningful input than parliamentarians who had been in majority governments where we have seen similarly large budget bills and, in fact, sometimes larger budget bills that covered more subject areas. I think we were able to have quite a good process here at committee.

I will wrap up by talking about the luxury tax, which was something we did amend at committee. We have heard some very significant concerns on the structure the Liberal government has chosen for the luxury tax and the potential effects it could have, particularly on the manufacturing industry in aerospace here in Canada. These are concerns that New Democrats take very seriously, and I know that members of other parties take those concerns very seriously as well. What we proposed as a solution was to give the government more flexibility on the coming-into-force date so it could take the time it needs to talk to industry about these potential effects.

We still have a dearth of good economic information from government on what it expects the economic impact of the tax to be. It is something that a colleague of mine at the finance committee has proposed to look into more and ask for more information, and I fully support that request. I fully expect the government to be listening to that; taking that information seriously; generating that information, which is information I think it ought to have generated before designing the tax; and talking to industry. There is still time, and if we pass the amendment that I proposed here at report stage, there would be even more time, if the government needed it, to get the structure of the tax right.

There is no question from this side of the House that the wealthy in Canada have not been paying their fair share. A luxury tax is one way to ensure that people with the most resources in Canada are paying back into the programs we need in order to make sure that people have access to essential services on the basis of equity and not the ability to pay. It is important that we move ahead with the luxury tax, but we want to do that in the right way, and we want to create enough space for government to be able to do that in the right way. We beseech the government to listen, to think about the timetable and to develop a better proposal that would address some of the very legitimate concerns we have heard coming out of the industry. As I said, we are trying to pave the way to do that.

Now, there was some debate at committee about whether this or that was in order. The Chair of the committee, who had ruled the particular amendment out of order, had his ruling overturned unanimously. Nobody voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair. When it came to the House, I think there was a little bit of surprise that the issue resurfaced. However, I think that we have managed to change the wording of the amendment to respect the Speaker's ruling in that regard to be consistent with the ways and means motion that had been presented in advance of Bill C-19.

We now have a solve that would allow us to change those coming-into-force provisions to give the government the extra time it needs to work with industry to get the balance right on the luxury tax, which is why I am very happy to be rising today speaking to that amendment. It would have been, frankly, a travesty if a procedural hiccup, which was unforeseen and for which no warning was provided, would have such a serious consequence for an important strategic industry in Canada. I am glad that here on the floor of the House of Commons we are finding a way to avoid having our procedural eccentricities interfere with a major industry that provides a lot of good jobs for Canadians.

With that, I thank members for their attention throughout the speech, and I am happy to answer any questions they may have.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. My question is about the part of his speech concerning the “bad”, namely the luxury tax.

My colleague was right to say that the Minister of Finance is too busy doing the Prime Minister's job, given that she is Deputy Prime Minister. We get the impression that a lot of corners were cut in Bill C-19. The proof is that dozens and dozens of pages have been cut from this poorly drafted bill.

Does my colleague think the same thing should happen with the luxury tax, even though the principle may seem fair?

This 170 pages is all about taxing producers rather than consumers. It needs to be removed and reworked.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-19, in Clause 135, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 256 the following:

“(2.1) Despite subsection (2), the provisions of the Select Luxury Items Tax Act, as enacted by subsection (1), that set out the tax on subject aircraft come into force on a day or days, after September 1, 2022, to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 257.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 258.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 259.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 260.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 261.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 262.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 263.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 264.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 265.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 266.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 267.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 268.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 269.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 274.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 275.

Madam Speaker, you made a heroic effort at going through all of those. I appreciate you putting them on the floor so we can have a good discussion about them today.

Before I get into the report stage amendments that we have proposed, and some of the experiences at the finance committee, I thought it would be important to have some high-level discussion to get into that, and then I would like to broaden the subject. I am going to be speaking quite a bit about the report stage amendments and the approach the Conservatives have, but I would also hope that hon. members will find most of the speech relevant to the issues we have.

In the movie Glengarry Glen Ross, Alec Baldwin plays a sales manager and tells his sales agents, “ABC: always be closing.” This is a classic movie for people in sales, but I can easily visualize the Prime Minister, at a very similar chalkboard with the finance minister, saying, “ABS: always be spending.” The approach of the current government has always been consistently on that side. There is nothing it cannot find money for, particularly for pet causes of the Prime Minister or his electoral coalition.

The Conservatives want to see proper spending and value for money. We know the value of every dollar the Canadian government receives. By the way, it is getting more revenue than ever. It does not have a revenue problem, as some other parties believe; it has a spending problem. Inflation has increased the revenues the government has. Obviously, we are in a commodities cycle right now where crude oil prices have gone up, so the government is collecting more money than it ever has, and it seems it cannot help itself but find more things to spend on.

Let us go to Bill C-19. I would like to discuss a little of what occurred at the finance committee and what I refer to as the good, the bad and unfortunately the ugly.

For the good, our shadow minister of national revenue put forward an amendment. While the government, through its parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, tried to rule it inadmissible, we followed through with the recommendations of JDRF and Diabetes Canada and brought an amendment that was ultimately accepted by the committee unanimously and will clarify the disability tax credit measures for life-sustaining therapy. That is so incredibly important for parents who have opened a registered disability savings plan. They need to have access to the DTC, the disability tax credit, to have that, so it is a very meaningful measure. There are Canadians right across the country who have opened up these accounts for their children so that when they retire eventually they will have that extra money, because diabetes is a serious illness that requires so much time and dedication, and of course it is very costly to pay for insulin, insulin pumps, etc., so this amendment will clarify that.

I want to thank all hon. members because it is these kinds of amendments that Canadians have sent us here to make sure people have. Diabetes is tough enough, and this makes it a bit easier.

Again, between regimes and provinces we should always be mindful that the Canadian government has to at least make sure there is some fairness, so with this we see a clarifying amendment that will help improve the lives of people with diabetes regardless of where they live in this great country.

Now it is time for the bad. The government has put forward a so-called luxury tax. I would probably call it a well-intentioned, but horribly wrong and misplaced tax. In fact, it should be called a producer tax. I can understand how some members of the NDP and Liberals, or as I call them the “speNDP-Liberals”, would say they want to make sure people are paying their fair share so they can then spend it, but we need to have a balance and the government does not get that. It does not understand, or at least it has refused to understand, that this particular tax will take the sales out of the sail of the boating industry in Canada. If I was a manufacturer of boats right now and had to go to my board of directors and ask if I should be making an investment in Canada, when I see that I am going to be hit by a $2.8-billion hole over the next five years, basically estimated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer as a drop of 15% in sales, I am not going to be making that investment. Why? It is because they are limited to their growth.

I have heard in my own riding that many of these manufacturers are receiving phone calls from the Americans to locate their facilities there. They are offering to give them land, build them buildings and give them tax incentives.

I see MP Ste-Marie here who has cited over and over the devastation this could cause. Pardon me. He is a great MP, and I will rescind that comment. The member of Parliament for Joliette has cited multiple times how important the aerospace industry is in Quebec, and this is something I have heard from my other Conservative colleagues in Quebec.

This is a bad tax, and we oppose it wholeheartedly. The government should be helping manufacturers to bring jobs and opportunity to this country, not sending it somewhere else.

The next thing I would say that is bad is the Competition Act changes. These Competition Act changes are not endorsed by any industry stakeholder. We had one witness who said we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. Everyone, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and I have never seen this before, but the Canadian Chamber of Commerce came to the committee and effectively said—

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There are 63 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-19.

Members will remember the Chair's ruling yesterday on the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, and more specifically on the amendment of clause 135, which was declared null and void.

Under these exceptional circumstances, Motions Nos. 4 and 5 on the Notice Paper, which concern the same Standing Order and seek to rectify the procedural issue identified by the Chair, were reviewed and the Chair is of the opinion that they respect the instructions provided in the note accompanying Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 63 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 63 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me join my colleague opposite in welcoming you in your return to the role of Speaker. It is wonderful to see you there. I almost cannot see you because of the monument. I guess it is an homage to Fenway Park. It is our own green monster that has been constructed in this chamber. I can kind of see your head over it. It is wonderful to see you back in this place and in such fine form and good health. Welcome back.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, the budget legislation, which was reported back to the House from the finance committee yesterday. I want to take the opportunity to thank all members for their hard work on getting it back so quickly. Tomorrow afternoon, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Our priorities for next week will be report stage and third reading of the budget bill, and Bill C-5 regarding mandatory minimum sentences. Finally, I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, June 7 shall be an allotted day.

Certain Amendments Made to Bill C-19

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Following the presentation yesterday of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, the Chair wishes to draw the attention of members to a procedural issue related to two amendments adopted by the committee during clause-by-clause study of the bill.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene in committee matters. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has a responsibility to ensure that certain fundamental rules and practices are properly observed. As Speaker Fraser explained on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, ... no matter how tempting that may be.

The first questionable amendment modified clause 6 of the bill in order to amend the Income Tax Act and allow individuals with type 1 diabetes to automatically qualify for a tax credit. Some uncertainty was raised about whether this amendment required a royal recommendation, and the chair of the committee ruled it inadmissible. This decision was challenged and subsequently overturned. The committee then debated and adopted this amendment.

The second amendment seeks to amend clause 135 of Bill C-19 to modify the select luxury items tax act. With respect to subject aircraft, the coming into force is changed from September 1, 2022, to a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. Here again, the chair of the committee ruled the amendment inadmissible because it lacked a needed ways and means motion. This decision was also challenged and overturned, and again the committee then debated the amendment and adopted it.

Both amendments bring up different, but equally important, questions about the admissibility of amendments and their compliance with certain financial procedures. Page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us that:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. An amendment is also inadmissible if it exceeds the scope of the ways and means motion on which a bill is based, or if it imposes a new charge on the people that is not preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion or not covered by the terms of a ways and means motion already adopted.

Given the potential consequences rising from these amendments and the way they were considered in committee, the Chair felt it necessary to review the relevant evidence together with the rules relating to financial procedure.

With respect to the first amendment related to clause 6, the Chair is unclear as to how it constitutes a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. In fact, based on the information the Chair has before it, it appears that this amendment allows a tax credit that in its application is non-refundable. Accordingly, while the chair of the committee determined that the amendment required a royal recommendation, I am of the view that it does not need one.

With regard to the amendment to clause 135, the Chair agrees with the committee chair that this amendment, by changing the date of the coming into force of the clause, could oblige certain entities to bear an additional charge. Consequently, given this possibility, this amendment needs to be preceded by a ways and means motion.

While the Chair appreciates the difficulties that can arise when examining a bill in committee, it is important to remember that a committee must carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. In the Chair’s view, by adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, a committee ventures beyond its powers.

Consequently, the Chair must order that the amendment to clause 135, adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance, be declared null and void, and that the amendment no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

I want to thank all members for their attention.

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to 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 take this opportunity to thank our legislative clerks Jacques Maziade and Émilie Thivierge, finance committee clerk Alexandre Roger, and all our committee staff, interpreters, services, members of the committee, witnesses and department officials for their hard work in getting this report completed.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I have to concur with regard to all the public officials as well as all the people who have worked hard around this table on Bill C-19 to make sure it receives proper scrutiny, I think we need to take a step back and take a look at many of the changes that have happened here.

We have changes to the DTC, the disability tax credit, when it comes to life-sustaining therapy. We have changes to direction and control elements of the bill. Couple that with the Excise Act changes as well as the foreign buyers changes. We've hit the express entry changes, and now we've hit EI.

This used to be a government that prided itself on consultation, yet we have had witness after witness come and say that the government didn't do its work. We have also heard commitment after commitment from the government to modernize the EI system. What do we see? We see, in this case, that they obviously didn't do their homework.

While I certainly can appreciate that PS Beech will be joining in taking away from the bill this section, the HUMA committee and this committee have found the government's work on this particular element of the file to be atrociously lacking in both depth and consultation. I certainly have never seen a budget implementation act.... This is a very large one, coming from a government that originally said it would not do omnibus bills. They've certainly thrown in many measures that I believe don't belong in a budget implementation act. For the government to try to proceed so haphazardly, without having the support of a program that so many Canadians depend on, really shows how much of a tin ear this government now has.

Again, this is from a government that said it would consult and be open and transparent. Now they are suddenly having to vote out large segments of their own budget implementation act. I really hope the Minister of Finance does a good debrief post-mortem, because Bill C-19 is no longer the bill it once was.

Again, I would simply point out that the finance minister, while she does have...and I do appreciate her ongoing service and commitment to Canada. I would say that the Prime Minister, by giving her two main focuses of being both Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister.... I would say that it shows there's just too much on her plate. She's not focused well enough that they can write EI legislation and at least be able to get it through their committees.

Mr. Chair, I really do hope the government takes the summer to reconsider this and spend the time necessary to actually find a path forward on these EI changes. It is an important program. Canadians put in a lot of money and a lot of time, and they have a lot of faith that, when they need that program, it will be there for them. So far the modernization efforts of this government are all political rhetoric and not enough action.

I think members get the flavour that Conservatives will be voting against.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully agree with Mr. Blaikie's proposal to reject all the clauses in division 32.

I gave a notice of motion to committee members. This notice was an echo of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which studied division 32. This committee was unanimous in saying that what is in division 32 is not satisfactory and must be thoroughly amended.

My amendments to division 32 were an effort to improve the bill. That being said, if the government would agree to withdraw division 32 from Bill C‑19 and introduce a bill that better meets the needs of the community, that would be ideal. It would also be consistent with the unanimous will of the human resources committee and the testimony we heard.

I would like to point out that experts from the Employment Insurance Appeal Board appeared before the committee. They told us that they were not at all satisfied with division 32 as worded.

I asked Terry Beech whether the government would agree to withdraw this division from the bill. If he agrees with Mr. Blaikie's proposal, that means that the government will have agreed. The unions also told us that this does not work, and the experts on the Employment Insurance Appeal Board, both those representing workers and those representing employees, told us that they were not satisfied with the Employment Insurance Appeal Board proposed in division 32.

I think the right thing to do would be to put all of this together and vote against it, so that this division would be removed from Bill C‑19. Later this fall, the minister will be able to introduce a bill that will better reflect the needs, requests and consultations, as well as the needs of the Employment Insurance Appeal Board.

I would like to acknowledge the exceptional work of my colleague Louise Chabot, the Bloc Québécois member who sits on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As soon as she became aware of Bill C‑19, she warned us that it was not working. She was able to call on all the stakeholders in the Employment Insurance Appeal Board so that they could see that it was not working.

With her proposal, she managed to generate a consensus within the human resources committee that this did not make sense and should be withdrawn. She did the same thing here in the Standing Committee on Finance; she suggested certain witnesses, and she came to ask certain questions. She has done an exceptional job, and I tip my hat to her.

I would like to thank Mr. Blaikie for his suggestion. I also want to thank Mr. Beech. In fact, I asked him about this division in front of witnesses. If he agreed with what is being proposed, it would show that he managed to get his government to act and that it decided to wait a little while.

Ultimately, I'm sure that we would have a better bill, a bill that would better serve the needs of the community.

I'm in favour of unanimous consent for Mr. Blaikie's request.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd certainly like to thank MP Blaikie for the explanation. Just for future reference, if he had just said, “Flip the page over, Dan”, I probably would have been able to read that, but I certainly appreciate his reading it out, because the people who are watching us.... Believe me, Mr. Chair, there are people who watch us, so hello to people who are watching us. I appreciate that you take an interest in Bill C-19.

I am going to just again thank MP Blaikie. I am more satisfied now that this is more of a public process because it has been defined, and I extend thanks to the member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 54 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. 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'd 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 floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder 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. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to the motion adopted in committee on Monday, May 9, the committee will continue today with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19. We have witnesses from various departments here with us who will be able to answer questions as we move through the clauses of the bill.

Members, just before we go to clause-by-clause on Bill C-19, the clerk distributed two budgets for our pre-budget consultation travel. Last evening you should have received them around 6:31 p.m. We are looking for approval of those, as the clerk has to bring them to the Liaison Committee.

I am looking for approval.