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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the suggestions of both Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Beech.

Also, I want to mention that I intend to withdraw BQ‑14 and BQ‑15, which would amend clause 377 of Bill C‑19.

I was in a rush to take the recommendations set out in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's report and turn them into amendments. However, since they don't concern Quebec, I will instead support NDP‑5 when the time comes. It relates to the same issue.

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move this motion. Both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.... I will just note that technically we put our platform out first in the last election, so it was our idea first to ban foreign buyers from the residential real estate market in Canada. Then the Liberals soon after decided they would follow suit.

Now the challenge in this, Mr. Chair, is that there are so many loopholes in this so-called foreign buyers ban. At committee, I asked simple questions, and at the technical briefing I asked simple questions that seemed to enunciate that a foreign national could still purchase a home in Canada. If a family gets separated because a spouse leaves, they can purchase another home, and their children, when they turn 18, can purchase another home, so there are so many different loopholes in this that I don't think it is really a forceful mechanism, and I think it was designed like that.

Second to note is that I still don't understand how the mechanism is to work in terms of how we will know who is purchasing properties. As you know, Mr. Chair, most of these assets are recorded provincially, so whether or not the authorities would have information available federally is still in question.

Setting those aside, the purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chair, is that despite those differences, we believe that the biggest loophole has been reserved for the government itself. In fact, if you look at the enabling legislation here in Bill C-19, it actually gives the Governor in Council, in this case the cabinet, the right to decide when it comes into force. While members of the NDP and the Liberals can go home to their constituencies and say, “Look, I voted in favour of a ban against foreign buyers in the residential market,” essentially cabinet has a law whereby it could say it's never going to have it come into force.

Mr. Chair, we believe that the Liberals made the commitment that they would ban foreign buyers. I don't necessarily think it captures what the government says it intended to in that original commitment, but we think there should at least be some certainty for the market. I've seen on Twitter—and, of course, we should always bear in mind that when we see something on Twitter, we shouldn't always take it as real—that some realtors actually say that the federal government has banned foreign buyers, when it has only introduced legislation in this bill do to so.

In order for there to be certainty in the industry so that realtors are made aware of that and can inform their clients that they may inadvertently be misaligned with the law, we just think it's easier to set an enforcement date, so everyone knows it. Then the government would, I think, at least keep its word to the Canadian people in a sensible and straightforward way. That is why we are suggesting that clause 235 should come into force on January 1, 2023. We think that between the passage of this bill and over the summer and into the winter months, the industry stakeholders could be consulted. They would know that that was the date on which it would come into force, and they would become better acquainted with the rules, rather than having the status quo that's in this bill, whereby you have a ban that really isn't a ban and a law that may never actually become law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Thank you.

Members, I'm going to give my ruling.

Bill C-19 enacts the select luxury items tax act. Amendment NDP-3.1 aims to modify the date of coming into force on subject aircraft by changing it from September 1, 2022 to “a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council”.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

An amendment is...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....

In the opinion of the chair, changing the date of the coming into force could oblige certain entities to bear an additional charge. Therefore, I declare this amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

The ruling from the chair is that Bill C-19 enacts the select luxury items tax act. Amendment BQ-8 seeks to modify the price threshold of $100,000 in the case of a subject aircraft, so that it would be set by regulation. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772 that “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....”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment could oblige certain entities to bear an additional charge; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking my fellow members for making their positions clear on the suite of amendments to this clause.

This is obviously the most problematic clause in Bill C-19. We are talking about a new tax, 170 pages' worth. My party and I support the principle of taxing luxury items. It allows for a better balance of wealth, whereby everyone contributes to public services on the basis of what they can afford. We support that principle.

What industry manufacturers and unions told us, however, is that this tax was poorly thought-out. Since it will probably be adopted, it will have significant consequences. If the amendments are defeated, I sincerely hope that, come the fall, the government will fix the situation and we'll end up with a tax that does not hurt the industries in question or jobs. Obviously, we'll believe it when we see it, as Quebec comedian Yvon Deschamps used to say.

In the case of this tax, it's easier for the government, the state, to tax the manufacturer, when the consumer should be paying the tax. There is a lot of bias in the 170 pages that deal with this tax.

For example, most aircraft subject to the tax are exported, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90% or 95%. My sense is that laziness is to blame for the way the bill is drafted, in other words, taxing every aircraft that is manufactured and providing for the possibility of a refund afterwards. Department officials told us that this was done on a quarterly basis, but manufacturers told us that aircraft often had to undergo numerous modifications and that it could take six, nine or 12 months before the refund is issued.

Manufacturers are being saddled with an administrative burden. They need cash, but they have to fork out hundreds of millions of dollars upfront, all because the tax is poorly designed. BQ‑6 would make clear that aircraft intended for export are excluded from the tax.

These amendments are meant to make the tax better and fix the problems with it. What members need to understand is that those problems will not be fixed. Industry stakeholders told us about instances where a company purchases an aircraft for business use and entrusts another company with managing the aircraft. That company can, in turn, rent out the aircraft when it's not in use. At the time of sale, the manufacturer must ensure that the aircraft purchased by the company and managed by an air charter company will not be rented out for personal use more than 10% of the time. All of that places a disproportionate burden on manufacturers' shoulders. It's virtually impossible to impose such a thing from the outset.

The amendments would help solve those problems. Lowering the proportion of business use from 90% to 75% would give manufacturers some breathing room and ensure that the tax does indeed target luxury items, instead of crippling the aerospace sector. Essentially, the idea behind the amendments was to make the tax less punitive for the oh-so-important aerospace sector and the other affected sectors.

The intent was not to have wealthy people who buy luxury goods pay less. It was to make the tax work better so that it doesn't unduly hurt manufacturers. At the end of the day, in its current form, the tax hurts manufacturers because it applies to activities that the spirit of the act does not cover. The administrative burden created by this measure is terribly onerous.

I want to stress to committee members that our aerospace sector faces fierce competition from players elsewhere in the world, in particular, Seattle, in the United States, and Toulouse, in France. Every other country has policies to support its aerospace economy. The aerospace sector adds tremendous value to our economy.

Canada is the only country with an aerospace sector of this size not to have a policy that supports the industry, such as through government procurement. On top of that, the government is bringing in a new tax. Industry representatives told us this measure would hurt the sector's reputation. The International Air Transport Association said that it might move. That shows that this is damaging the industry's reputation.

Even if all the problems were fixed in the fall—again, we'll have to see it to believe it, to quote Yvon Deschamps—it would still mean months of uncertainty. Meanwhile, the industry will realize that, if it wants to grow, it should go somewhere other than Canada. After all, the government is sending the message that it does not plan to help the industry. Canada would be the only country in the world not to support its own industry. It's beyond me. All of this is mind-boggling.

I thank my fellow members for expressing themselves so clearly, but if all the amendments being proposed are defeated, the economy and good jobs are going to take a major hit. The message being sent would fuel uncertainty and hurt Canada's credibility when it comes to building and strengthening the domestic aerospace cluster and supporting those jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

My sincere thanks to my fellow committee members for being open-minded and working so co-operatively. I am truly grateful. You are all to be commended.

Yesterday, the committee voted in favour of the modified version of BQ‑4, which dealt with clause 131 and sought to exclude cider and mead from the excise tax. For the sake of consistency and alignment, I would like to move a similar amendment to clause 132, because the same amendment cannot apply to more than one clause. Here's the amendment.

I move that Bill C-19, in clause 132, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 106 with the following:

placed by the following: (a) produced in Canada from honey or apples and composed wholly of agricultural or plant product grown in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Okay. Mr. Chair, I would like to put forward again our CPC amendment. This was recently sent out by the clerk, I believe. I hope all committee members have had a chance to take a look at it. It just changes the language to say that this would have referred to clause 131.

This amendment to the amendment would simply defer, until January 1, 2023, the application of excise when it comes to beer, wine and spirits—particularly, in this case, wine. I gave much of my rationale yesterday. The rationale still stands. Many of our wineries have had such a hard and difficult time since COVID. The impact to their bottom line has been tremendous. Because of supply chain issues, many are unable to secure the bottles they need in order to bottle by July 1, when the new excise provisions that are contemplated in Bill C-19 would take effect under the current reading. This would essentially give them that extra time.

I also want to be mindful that, for many wineries, especially the small and medium-sized family wineries, many have never paid excise, because they use 100% Canadian-grown content. I'm not going to rehash old debates today about the Australian wine WTO challenge and where it led us to, other than to say that these wineries need our help. The Australians stood up for their wine industry because of what they felt was unfair treatment towards domestic product versus their product due to the escalator only applying to foreign product or product made with less than 100% Canadian content.

Mr. Chair, what I'm asking for here is a deferment. This would give them the time to bottle. I also believe it would dovetail with the government's strategy, because it has not fully unveiled what its replacement program would be. There have been discussions with the industry and commitments made by the government in this budget. Some of the numbers are still under question, but the actual formation of that program—who receives it, and at what amounts—has not been made public to the industry. This would give the industry that extra time. It would also give the government extra time to make sure that everyone knows their obligations under the law. I would just ask for all honourable members to support this important bill.

Again, I recognize that the Canadian government, before COVID, made commitments. The Australian government stood up for its producers. All I'm asking for is a deferment. I don't think the Australians, considering there's a new government there, would look at it as out of hand to say that we are implementing this to keep as many small and medium-sized wineries open so that they can begin to understand their obligations under this new law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Yes, I have written a letter to the clerk based on the clarifications that one of the members was looking for. As of yet, we have not received any response. I will work with Madam Clerk to see when we can get the response from the law clerk. Once we have that, we can look into scheduling something accordingly.

One more thing, before we go further, is with regard to budget approvals I need. I would like to request budget approval for three studies. The first is on the subject matter of part 5, division 23 of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, for an amount of $850.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 53 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

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

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy of March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

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

I remind everyone 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 well as 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, I see a couple of hands up. I see Mr. Albas and then Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned at the top of the meeting when I was speaking to my point of order, instead of moving BQ‑4 as originally written, I will be proposing a modified version. The new amendment was sent out earlier today.

I will take a few moments to read it, and then, I will say a few words about both the form and the substance of the amendment.

I move that Bill C‑19, in clause 131, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 19 on page 106 with the following:

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to wine (a) that is produced by an individual for their personal use and that is consumed in the course of that use; or (b) that is produced from honey, apples or any other prescribed agricultural or plant product. (2) Subsection (1) applies after June 29, 2022.

Clearly, this provision could change given the amendments that may follow.

Australia took legal action against Canada regarding the excise tax on wine, wine made from grapes, to be precise. The dispute did not relate to mead or cider.

The committee heard from industry representatives about their high production costs. They said that the excise tax could limit the growth and development of their fledgling industry in the country.

The least we can do is adopt this amendment, which is in line with the settlement regarding the dispute between Canadian and Australian wine producers. It only makes sense.

As for whether the amendment is admissible, I would say that this does not create a new tax. This does not broaden the legislation's reach. It simply amends an existing measure, so I am asking the committee members to support this amendment.

Mead producers and cider makers explained to the committee the impact this legislation could have on their industry.

The problem lies in the fact that the federal government is conflating wine, cider and mead, and this amendment would fix that. As I see it, the amendment is entirely admissible.

Once again, I urge my fellow members to vote in favour of this amendment to support our cider and mead producers.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think one of the big challenges we have here is that, again, the government has moved first with its own bill without properly consulting on and trying to really capture the spirit of the senator's bill. That's the challenge here.

The government is again trying to look like it is doing something in alignment with a very popular initiative, and the reason why it's popular is that charities want to do good work. They want to be able to deliver services in a more efficient and accountable manner, but the problem is that, if you're spending all your time dealing with red tape and doing it in a prescriptive approach, you aren't able to help people who are in need, when they need it.

I would encourage all members to support this particular change. MP Lawrence, to his credit, has met with the charitable sector multiple times outside of the committee and did an admirable job of raising some of the concerns of the charitable sector in regard to the original drafting of Bill C-19. It did not capture the spirit of the senator's bill.

I'd suggest that rather than playing catch-up, we instead just deliver exactly what the charitable sector is wanting, which is the senator's bill in this BIA.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My point of order is twofold.

First, you all received notice of the motion I wanted to propose at the start of today's meeting. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities unanimously supported the recommendation to examine division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19 separately.

After speaking with Mr. Beech, I want to let everyone know that I will be proposing that motion at a later meeting, not today's.

Second, you also received an amendment that would replace Bloc Québécois amendment 4, BQ‑4. When we get to the amendment, which deals with clause 131, I will propose the new BQ‑4, which you all received.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

I see Monsieur Ste-Marie's hand up.

Monsieur Ste-Marie, I will recognize you after my opening remarks.

Welcome to meeting number 52 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 in their place during proceedings.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of 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. Interpretation for those on Zoom is available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

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. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to the motion adopted in committee on Monday, May 9, the committee will proceed 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.

I'm recognizing Monsieur Ste-Marie, who has his hand up.

[Yves Giroux]

Thank you very much for having asked these two questions.

With respect to your first question, it's true that the tax on luxury goods will increase federal revenue, but unfortunately decrease provincial revenue, at least for provinces that have a sales tax on goods of this kind.

Your second question was about warnings. We haven't studied the parts or divisions that did not include financial provisions or that did not generate considerable expenditures.

However, we did note that division 6 of Part 5 is identical to what is in Bill C‑17. I'm talking here of the transfer of $2 billion to the provinces to reduce health care wait times. These two provisions have exactly the same goal; at least that's how I understand it. I believe that it is included because the government expects to have Bill C‑19 adopted before Bill C‑17. We believe that this deserves the attention of parliamentarians, to avoid duplication in the objectives and expenditures. We are, after all, talking about $2 billion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I have only two and a half minutes left, I'll ask my questions in succession.

My first question is about the new tax on certain luxury goods.

This tax will increase the federal government's revenue, but it will decrease provincial revenue because the number of sales will drop and the provincial sales tax on such goods will apply to a smaller tax base. I'd like confirmation that I've understood this properly.

My second question is about Bill C‑19. I'm afraid that the committee will not be able to fully study this mammoth bill of over 400 pages in length, and which includes many parts and divisions.

Do you and your team have any warnings for us, or anything they would like to point out to us, in connection with Bill C‑19? I don't know whether you've had enough time to examine the entire bill, and Part 5 in particular.

I'm thinking, for example, of division 9, which concerns the Special Import Measures Act and other areas. Do you think there are any dangers here?

Is division 15, which is about the Competition Act, put together coherently?

And what of division 16, in connection with the Copyright Act, and division 17, with respect to patents?

I'm also surprised to see, in a budget implementation bill, that there should be a mention of the Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act. That's in division 18.

And division 19 addresses prison strip searches.

Suggested amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Employment Insurance Act are also found in this bill.

Are you looking at all of that, because it's a budget implementation bill, or are you somewhat overwhelmed, as we are, by the scope of this bill?

Do you have any warnings for us?