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

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take umbrage at the comments about the Conservatives, but let us talk about something we can agree on.

The member talked about the price of bread. He said it is unthinkable that people fix the price of bread and it is important to Canadians. I think that is true. However, why does the member support the government putting a tax in place that increases the cost of growing wheat, milling wheat, cooking wheat into bread and shipping bread to the grocery store? Why is he supporting the government in raising the cost of bread in Canada?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that we can, in fact, disagree while not being disagreeable. I understand that the member has often contributed greatly to the dialogue in this place, and I respect that.

In relation to the cost of bread and the issues we are seeing, my support for this fall economic statement falls on the fact that Canadians are hurting desperately. As a member of Parliament, I know that Canadians do not want to continue to suffer, and these benefits are critical to their support. Removing student loan interest, for instance, is something many students would benefit from.

It is unfortunate that the Conservatives continue to block important services and programs that every Canadian deserves right now.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and really appreciated the range of topics he was able to cover. I hear him on the fact that we have a lot more work to do, and I am committed to doing that work.

We have heard from the Conservatives time and time again today about Canada student loans and interest, and that students should be paying their fair share and paying interest on student loans. They would be paying back the principal, and this is a policy that many students in the riding of Waterloo and I have been fighting for.

I would like to hear the member's comments on the affordability crisis and removing interest from the federal portion of Canada student loans. What kind of benefits and impacts would this have on students? I am sure he can relate to some within his riding.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to remind members of the House that students have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Paying tuition is another double whammy on their lives and is simultaneous to the issues of inflation. The least we can do is ensure they are not paying interest on those loans.

I would go further, though, to add that it is important to begin the process of ensuring that the government looks at the principal of those debts so we can find ways to actually reduce the debt load that many Canadians are suffering with right now by forgiving $20,000.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague agree with me on the following?

Bill C-32 sets out 25 tax measures, but they are basically nothing but minor legislative amendments. Some measures that were announced were already in budget 2020. There is nothing new in Bill C-32 to help combat inflation.

Does he agree with me?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, one particular tax that I think is important to realize, which the Bloc is supporting, is the Canada recovery dividend. It is an important measure to address the insurers and banks that are profiting over $1 billion, which is the kind of revenue the government needs. This is an important tax measure that would continue to fund programs so that regular Canadians do not have to.

In addition to this, we think some Canadians should benefit despite the crisis we are facing. For home heating costs, we want to ensure there is a removal of the GST. We actually proposed an amendment to the Conservative's opposition day motion that would see that happen and they defeated it.

We want to ensure the tax system works for Canadians, and these are measures that would do that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Oil and Gas Industry; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-32 has more bulk than substance. My colleagues were right in saying so earlier.

Bill C-32 contains 25 different tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. That may seem like a lot, but there are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis to comply with court rulings, treaties and new accounting policies or to correct an unintended effect of an act, while others were already announced in the spring 2022 budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June.

Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, 2022, Bill C-32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. It is a bill that does not do any harm but does not deserve much praise either. At the same time, it is not a total disappointment, because it does contain a few positive measures.

The Bloc Québécois takes issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 108 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people, such as the elderly or those who have lost their jobs. It offers no solutions, despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget.

The Bloc Québécois asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people, such as increasing health transfers, which I will come back to, adequately supporting people aged 65 and over, and immediately reforming the EI program, which is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. The government dismissed our proposals. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.

With respect to health care, there is an ongoing standoff between the federal government on one side and Quebec and the provinces on the other. The Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. Let us not forget that, in 1993, former minister Paul Martin decided to erase the federal deficit by cutting health transfers from 50% to 25%. The provinces were in crisis. Since then, no government has been interested in getting funding back up to that 50% over time. We would be happy with a boost to 35%, but the government has not only failed to restore funding to where it was, it has reduced it to 22%.

That is unacceptable. This injustice must be corrected. Sick people and health care workers are the ones suffering. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached the breaking point, but the federal government is not taking action. Obviously, it would much rather prolong the health care funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front so it can convince them to accept less than they are asking for.

I would remind the House that sections 92 and 93 of the Canadian Constitution state very clearly that the only role of the federal Parliament is to transfer money to the provinces without any conditions. When I look at the various political parties here in Ottawa, I often wonder if they are proud to be Canadian. I am very proud to be a Quebecker, and if there were a Quebec constitution, the first thing I would do to express my pride would be to respect it. At the federal level, the Constitution is abundantly clear about health transfers. Why, then, does Ottawa choose not to respect the Constitution? Are those members proud to be Canadian, yes or no? Anyone who is proud to be Canadian would respect the country's Constitution.

Let us now talk about the two classes of seniors. This is the first time we see an attack on the universality of health programs. People between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase in old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living. Seniors are the most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store, the pharmacy or the gas pump. The government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age. Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD.

The increase in old age security should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.

There are several solutions that could help seniors. I would like to quote from a letter I received from Robert Bernatchez, who lives in my riding. His proposal is very acceptable, very simple to understand and very simple to implement, but for the time being the government is turning a deaf ear.

His letter reads as follows:

Dear Mr. [MP], allow me to share with you an initiative that may help seniors 65 to 74. They do not benefit from the increase to old age security, since the federal government increased the age of eligibility to 75.

Whereas the 10% increase to old age security is reserved for individuals 75 and older and this is unfair to individuals who have not reached that age. It should be noted that we had a universal plan starting at 65 for the old age security pension.

Whereas there is currently no permanent government measure that allows retirees 65 to 74 to increase their income to cope with growing inflation.

Whereas the message sent by the federal and provincial governments to retirees 65 to 74 is that “if you want more money then get a job to help address the pressing labour shortage and/or to increase your income”.

Whereas many retirees 65 to 74 do not want to return to work or they would have already done so.

Whereas these are the same people who helped build the Quebec and Canada of today. They have made invaluable contributions and now want to receive some help.

We, retirees aged 65 to 75, are calling on the federal government to change the eligibility criteria for the guaranteed income supplement to include the following.

When inflation exceeds 3%, the following measures will apply:

Retirees aged 65 to 75 who earn less than $50,000 in income, as entered on line 199 of their income tax return, can withdraw up to a maximum of $2,500 from their RRIFs without any reduction to their guaranteed income supplement. This measure will apply for the 2022 tax year. An adjustment will consequently be made to non-refundable federal tax credits to increase the amount of deductible pension income to $2,500.

Sir, I hope you will defend this new measure like you defended the earnings exemption for self-employed workers in 2019....

I hope the government will get the message.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on a very well delivered speech. I would expect nothing less from a man of wisdom, one with so many years of experience.

He delivered a speech that showed a great deal of concern for Canadians, and I thank him very much for that, as well as for his work and his words.

I would like to address a few points in his speech. I would like my colleague to respond to them with his own comments.

In terms of our investments in health care, we spent an additional $2 billion not too long ago to try and catch up on surgeries that were delayed because of the pandemic. That was on top of the $4.5 billion that was added during the pandemic, also to help Canadians.

With respect to Bill C‑32, I would like to remind my colleague that the Canada workers benefit will also help those in need.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising those points.

You mentioned $2 billion, but when the government slashed transfers in half from 50% to 25%, that represented a lot more than the $2 billion you say you provided.

Let me remind you that the federal government's role is to transfer the money to the provinces, not to give that money directly or to opine that one type of care is better than another or that one type of collaboration is better than another. All the federal government is supposed to do is give the money unconditionally.

You say that the government has intervened in times of crisis, but the Constitution also says that, in times of crisis, the federal government has an obligation to step up and transfer funds for health care.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he must address the Chair, not the parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

There is no mention of new health care funding, even though all Canadians are concerned about the current state of our health care system.

What does my colleague think of the situation?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I talked about the health transfers that all the provinces have requested. Quebec and all the provinces are calling for a new cost-sharing arrangement with an additional $28 billion going to the provinces.

The federal government may say that this is not immediately feasible, but it could at least promise to do it in increments. It could make a two-, three- or four-year agreement to reach that 35% target. I would remind the House that health transfers to the provinces were 50% in 1993.

This is critically important. It is what the provinces are calling for, and it is becoming increasingly pressing right now. I read a document about Ontario, where the situation is critical. In Quebec, the situation is critical in all hospitals. We need the money that is owed to us.

The Constitution very clearly states that the transfers must be unconditional.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, in relation to diseases caused by mental illness, compared to G7 and OECD peers, Canada is underspending on mental health. France spends 15% of its health care budget on mental health and the U.K. spends 13%. My colleague, whom I respect a lot, talked about having no strings attached on mental health transfers, but currently, mental health spending makes up between 5% and 7% of health care spending depending on the province or territory. Mental health care stakeholders are saying we need a target of at least 12%.

Last week, the Bloc voted against a unanimous consent motion I put forward for universal mental health care. Does my colleague recognize the economic and social costs of underinvesting in mental health?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to mental health, what is happening is terrible. Mental health problems have increased dramatically, so the amount of money that needs to be invested also needs to increase considerably.

Once again, this is a health-related issue, and health is a provincial responsibility. That is very clearly stated in the Constitution, in section 92. If the government wants to be generous, understanding and responsive to the provinces, it should simply transfer the money. Quebec has the knowledge to help people suffering from mental health problems.