Bill C-32

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act by
(a) providing that any gain on the disposition of a Canadian housing unit within a one-year period of its acquisition is treated as business income;
(b) introducing a Tax-Free First Home Savings Account;
(c) phasing out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities;
(d) introducing a new 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for specified mineral exploration expenses incurred in Canada and renounced to flow-through share investors;
(e) introducing the Canada Recovery Dividend under which banks and life insurers’ groups pay a temporary one-time 15% tax on taxable income above $1 billion over five years;
(f) increasing the corporate income tax rate of banks and life insurers’ groups by 1.5% on taxable income above $100 million;
(g) providing additional reporting requirements for trusts;
(h) providing rules applicable to mutual fund trusts listed on a designated stock exchange in Canada with respect to amounts that are allocated to redeeming unitholders;
(i) providing the Minister of National Revenue with the discretion to decline to issue a certificate under section 116 of the Income Tax Act in certain circumstances relating to the administration and enforcement of the Underused Housing Tax Act ;
(j) doubling the First-Time Homebuyers’ Tax Credit;
(k) expanding the eligibility criteria for the Medical Expense Tax Credit in respect of medical expenses incurred in Canada related to surrogate mothers and donors and fees paid in Canada to fertility clinics and donor banks;
(l) introducing the Multigenerational Home Renovation Tax Credit;
(m) allowing access to the small business tax rate on a phased-out basis up to taxable capital of $50 million;
(n) modifying the computation of income as a result of the adoption of a new international accounting standard for insurance contracts;
(o) introducing a new graduated disbursement quota rate for charities;
(p) providing that the general anti-avoidance rules can apply to transactions that affect tax attributes that have not yet been used to reduce taxes;
(q) strengthening the rules on avoidance of tax debts;
(r) modifying the calculation of the taxes applicable to registered investments that hold property that is not a qualified investment;
(s) modifying the tax treatment of certain interest coupon stripping arrangements that might otherwise be used to avoid tax on cross-border interest payments;
(t) clarifying the applicable rules with respect to audits by Canada Revenue Agency officials, including requiring taxpayers to give reasonable assistance and to answer all proper questions for tax purposes; and
(u) extending the capital cost allowance for clean energy and the tax rate reduction for zero-emission technology manufacturers to include air-source heat pumps.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act , the Excise Tax Act , the Air Travellers Security Charge Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Income Tax Regulations .
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 and other related texts in order to implement changes to
(a) the federal excise duty frameworks for cannabis and other products by, among other things,
(i) permitting excise duty remittances for certain cannabis licensees to be made on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis, starting from the quarter that began on April 1, 2022, and
(ii) allowing the transfer of packaged, but unstamped, cannabis products between licensed cannabis producers; and
(b) the federal excise duty framework for vaping products in relation to the markings, customs storage and excise duty liability of these products.
Part 3 amends the Underused Housing Tax Act to make amendments of a technical or housekeeping nature. It also makes regulations under that Act in order to, among other things, implement an exemption for certain vacation properties.
Division 1 of Part 4 authorizes the Minister of Finance to acquire and hold on behalf of His Majesty in right of Canada non-voting shares of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation that is responsible for administering the Canada Growth Fund and to requisition the amounts for the acquisition of those shares out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the maximum financial assistance that may be provided in respect of foreign states.
Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4 enacts the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act .
Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 4 contains transitional provisions in respect of the enactment of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts. It also repeals the First Nations Land Management Act .
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Government Employees Compensation Act in order to fulfil 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.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on guaranteed student loans beginning on April 1, 2023.
It also amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on student loans beginning on April 1, 2023.
Finally, it amends the Apprentice Loans Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on apprentice loans beginning on April 1, 2023 and to clarify when the repayment of apprentice loans begins during the interest suspension period from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2023.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to give a brief shout-out to a business that is a Kamloops beacon and a beautiful, thriving small business in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is Riversong Guitars, which recently won a prestigious award. I want to read from a story from the CBC. Here is a quote:

Riversong's P2P River Pacific was announced on Sunday as the acoustic category winner in the prestigious Musical Merchandise Review...Dealers' Choice Awards. In the 30-year history of the international awards, Riversong owner and P2P guitar inventor Mike Miltimore said this is the first time a Canadian company has won acoustic guitar of the year.

That is quite an accomplishment for a relatively small company, and especially a Canadian company. I am equally proud that the people come from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I want to thank Mr. Miltimore and his staff for all they have done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and for the industry.

We do not get to share enough of these stories in the House of Commons. While that is somewhat positive, sometimes we have to dwell on, or not dwell on but point out the negative. Here we are, speaking to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement.

This is a confidence matter. We are talking about over $1 billion of spending. When I asked myself about supporting a confidence measure, as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian, I asked myself, “Do I have trust in the government?”

With all due respect, the conclusion I have come to, based especially on what I have seen in the last couple of months, is a resounding no. I ask myself what it means to have confidence in the government, such that a parliamentarian can support a piece of confidence legislation like the fall economic statement.

Confidence is predicated on trust. Why do I not trust what the government is doing and what the government is putting forward? Why do my constituents generally not trust what the government is doing and what the government is putting forward, based on their communications to me? Last, why do a number of Canadians not trust what the government is doing, communicating and saying?

First, and likely most notably, is when it comes to finances. Here we are, debating a bill based on finances. Let us turn back the clock a bit and remember that this was the Prime Minister who promised modest deficits of $10 billion. He also promised that the budget would be balanced by 2019. What we saw were much larger deficits than the promised $10 billion. We also saw no intention to balance that same budget.

The Prime Minister said the budget would balance itself. It has not. The Prime Minister has doubled all debt and has added more debt to Canada's financial rolls than all other prime ministers combined. I have young children, which is obviously no secret, and I wonder about the care for future generations. Who will pay for this?

I recently read a statistic, and I am going to paraphrase it here. My understanding is that we are paying so much just in interest on the debt that we could nearly fund our whole health care system. The Liberals will extol how much money they put into health care. We Conservatives will say that the money is not being spent appropriately or efficiently and is not getting things done. It is one thing to spend money, generally, but Conservatives believe in spending money prudently. There is a very key distinction.

Who will fundamentally pay for this? I am wondering. The government pays the debt off; there is no doubt about it, but we, the people, must pay the government, and that has to happen in one of two ways. It happens through taxation, or it happens through borrowing.

I will often hear in question period when Conservatives, seemingly the only opposition party in the House at times, or so it feels, will point out the spending or the difficulties, and the Liberals will say in response that they have done this and they have lowered that, or, as I just heard, they have doubled the GST credit.

I am going to give a personal anecdote. Not long ago, I looked at the after-tax pay on a T4 slip of somebody I know well. When I was working in federal corrections, I made a good salary, and this person makes tens of thousands of dollars more than I did, yet the individual's take-home pay is just $200, $300, $400 a month more than what I took home 20 years ago, working for the federal government. That is not because of deductions that those employees are choosing. These are incremental things at the source. There are—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

It's pensions.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Okay, let us talk about pensions.

I will ask for unanimous consent for my friend across the floor to take 30 seconds to talk about it.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Sure. Yes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a request for unanimous consent to allow the member for St. Catharines to speak, but I hear a number of members saying no.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is too bad. I would love to have heard him talk about pensions. It is really too bad. I feel really let down about his not talking about pensions, but members need not worry, because I will take it up.

At the end of the day, I am looking directly at the member, and if he wants to tell me how roughly $700, $800, $900 or $1,000 a month goes just to pensions, I am all ears, because I know for a fact he cannot substantiate how $1,000 a month of after-tax income goes to pensions.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We seem to be having a lot of back and forth, so I want to intervene.

I know this government has voted to lower the tax on the middle class, with the members of the Conservative Party voting against it, so I am really looking forward to hearing the explanation about this—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is debate. I know that maybe some members have not been here for a while, but we have a 10-minute speech and then questions and answers afterward, so there is an opportunity for members to exchange thoughts and comments then.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak recently, after the whole Michael Geist thing, so it is really good to have him here, intervening on a really dubious point of order.

In any event, we have a government that is prepared to forsake a number of Canadian jobs. Those Canadian jobs, when it comes to LNG, could have gone to Canada. Instead, they went to Qatar.

When we talk about trust, we talk about transparency. I hope I get a question from the Liberals, because I would love for them, in the preamble to their question, to answer who the 11 people are. Let us talk about transparency by default. Who are the 11? They said transparency by default and sunny ways were what we were going to get. No, we have not gotten sunny ways. We have not gotten transparency by default. Who stayed in the $6,000-a-night hotel room? Again, it is transparency by default and sunny ways.

The Auditor General's report says we are talking about $27 billion, and the government says it completed its stated aims. That is like saying our stated aim was to start a campfire. We started a forest fire, but that campfire got lit, so we did what we set out to do. That is absolutely ridiculous logic. This is why I do not have any trust in the government.

Let us imagine what we could do about illegal guns with $27 billion. We have Bill C-21, in the mess that it is. We have information that, in my view, is not accurate in Bill C-21 about law-abiding hunters. Again, where is the trust?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually shocked to hear the Conservatives worry that I am not speaking enough in this place. I speak as frequently as I can, but I am happy to rise here today.

The hon. member talks about his constituents, and at the same time, he speaks about too much money being spent and not enough. I was wondering if he tells his constituents about the Conservative record of voting against tax cuts for the middle class, against tax increases for the wealthiest 1%, against increases to the guaranteed income supplement, against increases to OAS and against the supports in this bill that would help Canadians.

The Conservatives talk a great game about helping Canadians, but when the time comes to vote, they are nowhere to be seen. I am wondering if the hon. member explains that to his constituents, or is it just Conservative platitudes and talking points?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we did not preside over the doubling of house prices in Canada. We did not preside over the doubling of the national debt after saying we would not do that. We are the party that lowered the GST. Millennials, and other people, could actually afford a house under Conservatives. They cannot afford a house now under the Liberal government, which is propped up by the NDP.

When it comes to their saying, “We have your backs”, seniors are writing to me and saying they cannot afford any food. They are saying they cannot afford—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Table the letter.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to, if he would like. I would be happy to table the letter. If the hon. parliamentary secretary wants to doubt that seniors are writing to me saying they cannot afford things, shame on him.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

If we are going to table something, we should have it with us, and of course we need to have consent to do that.

I am hearing lots of chatter in the chamber, so I ask that we try to keep it down and have our debate as we normally do.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has the floor.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I often hear my colleagues talk about pediatric hospitals and say how the emergency departments are overloaded and that something has to be done. I agree with them completely. There are no pediatric hospitals in my riding. However, obstetric services are often unavailable. We have trouble recruiting, and often this has to do with the underfunding of health care.

Does my colleague agree with me that last fall’s economic statement would have been the perfect opportunity to finally announce an increase in health transfers from the federal to the provincial governments?