My question specifically—
Evidence of meeting #62 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #62 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Let me just add to that.
This situation was put forward and essentially now, the long-standing policy of the legislation was not met in that particular situation, or there was a risk that it was not met. There is no final decision on what interpretation a court would take on that position. This is basically to protect revenue in case the position of CRA would not prevail in court.
It also has to be recognized that other seniors-type apartment buildings without the health care facility aspect are treated the way this amendment would treat the particular situation that was brought forward to us by the CRA.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just to clarify, your concern was twofold. One was that these apartments were being operated in association to a health care facility, but not under a classic definition of a long-term care home or whatnot that could apply for this relief, and that the interpretation might then expand.
But just to be clear, you were concerned about losing this interpretation in front of the Tax Court. Is that what you had said?
4:10 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
There was a position put forward by a taxpayer and essentially there are steps to go through. There is an internal appeal to the CRA where the taxpayer talks with the CRA, and when there is still a disagreement, there is always a recourse to the court that is available to the taxpayer.
My understanding is that they are at that stage.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
When a change like this is made to the tax code in the midst of that dispute, does it affect that dispute? Is that the intention?
4:10 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Usually, if the challenge to the court has been finally determined by the court, an amendment to the legislation would not apply to it. But if not, yes, and this was the intention of this amendment, to clarify the long-standing position of the government in that respect.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Just to be clear here, this does not affect long-term care facilities, assisted living.... In all aspects, this is an apartment building that happens to be owned by a health care facility and that health care facility wants to treat it as a health care facility when it's not. It's strictly an apartment building.
November 26th, 2014 / 4:10 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Yes.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Mercille, I know you can't go into detail, but does the situation you are currently dealing with involve a for-profit or not-for-profit apartment building?
4:15 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
A not-for-profit building.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
You are referring to an apartment building belonging to a group that runs a health care facility. But the apartment building itself was operated on a not-for-profit basis, is that right?
4:15 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Yes. The entity in charge runs the building on a not-for-profit basis.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Caron.
Shall clause 96 carry?
(Clause 96 agreed to on division)
(Clause 97 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 98 and 99 agreed to)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll move to part 3, Excise Act, 2001. We have two clauses for this part.
(On clause 100)
Mr. Cullen.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We'll be voting in favour of this because as I mentioned earlier, it is affixed to an old omnibus bill that was pushed through. We are always willing to help the government fix their mistakes, when they have rammed other legislation through. How many are going to come out of this omnibus bill, to be fixed next? It's a curiosity.
But we'll be seeking comment on the parts that follow after part 3.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Shall clauses 100 to 101 carry?
(Clauses 100 and 101 agreed to)
Thank you.
Colleagues, we'll move to part 4. As you know, part 4 deals with various measures, clauses 102 to 401. It has a number of divisions. I will proceed division by division.
Division 1, intellectual property, deals with clauses 102 to 142. I do not have an amendment until clause 132, so which clause would members like me to deal with? Can I group a number of them together?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We can after. I wouldn't mind a couple questions on 102.
(On clause 102)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll start with clause 102. We'll welcome our officials. They are all from Industry Canada, I believe.
Welcome to the committee.
Questions, Mr. Cullen?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, the concern is over not just the content but the process we're going through here in terms of the changes to the patent laws in Canada.
As all committee members have heard from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and a number of trademark experts, getting productivity right is directly connected to innovation, which is connected to our ability to form and create patents in Canada. That this is part of an omnibus bill has not done, I would argue, this important part of our economy any proper service. The scrutiny was not enough and I think that's why we saw, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others, resistance to this particular part.
We understand that there are some international treaties—the Hague, the Patent Law Treaty and whatnot—that the government seeks to be in accordance with. Without proper scrutiny, and with grave concerns raised by a group like the chamber—the government usually has some interest and respect for their opinions—that opposition is leading us to believe that, as the government likes to say, we rely on the experts. The experts in this case are those who seek to make patents in Canada with concerns about the way this is being done and also the content.
The New Democrats will be opposing these aspects of this omnibus bill and we encourage the government, when tinkering with something as important as intellectual property and patent, to give it the proper due and service of a stand-alone piece of legislation, rather than burying it in the midst of a 460-page bill that deals with a whole variety of things. Both on content and on source we have serious concerns with what's being done to industrial design and patents for Canada.
Thank you, Chair.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
Do you want me to deal with clause 102 separately?