Finance Committee on May 27th, 2019

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

This is any car at any price, but you can deduct up to $55,000 for the car for businesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Is that it for discussion on this point?

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I love my plug-in hybrid. It has an 8.8 kilowatt hour battery. I just thought I'd let Tom know that it's fantastic. I didn't get any rebates.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

You can buy a new one with the rebate soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You could give Tom a drive in it and then he would know what it runs like.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I have a Jeep Commander. Drive in mine and we'll drive in yours after.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

We could carpool.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 53 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 54 to 110 inclusive agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have a different group of officials.

The officials coming forward on division 2, for clauses 98 to 126, are Mr. Patterson, Director, Corporate, Insolvency and Competition Policy Directorate; and Ms. Davidson, Senior Project Leader, Financial Crimes Governance and Operations.

Welcome to the table, folks.

(On clause 111)

We have amendment LIB-3. Mr. Sorbara is speaking to that.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair. I'd just like to comment that in the media recently, there has been much talk about the reports recently issued by the Government of British Columbia with regard to money laundering. As a committee, we were tasked to do a five-year review of anti-money laundering and terrorist financing. It was an exhaustive study that we did for a number of months. We travelled here in Canada and abroad. The review is something that the committee was tasked to do and did quite judiciously, and it is something that our government has obviously dedicated resources to in budget 2019.

It concerns all Canadians from coast to coast to coast that Canada has become or is a centre point for money laundering. It's very fitting to see that in budget 2019 we are continuing to undertake a number of measures, which I think all parties would applaud, in terms of fighting money laundering whether with regard to its impact on house prices in Vancouver or Toronto, or with regard to the impact in general of lost tax revenues for our government to fund the services we need.

The proposed amendment would add a reference to compliance agreements in the provision that makes public naming automatic in certain circumstances with respect to violations related to the proceeds of crime, money laundering and terrorist financing.

It's also being proposed that a level playing field be ensured so that all regulated entities that commit a violation will be named, including when a compliance that remains in place between the reporting entity and Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, otherwise known as FINTRAC, would also ensure that there is no advantage for regulated entities to enter into a compliance agreement with FINTRAC to avoid naming.

Chair, this is generally a housekeeping amendment, which is aligned with the spirit of the proposed legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, so moved. Is there any discussion on amendment LIB-3 to clause 111?

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

May I just ask the officials to tell us what the impact of this amendment would be on the operations of the centre?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Davidson.

[Charlene Davidson, Senior Project Leader, Financial Crimes Policy, Financial Systems Division, Financial Sector Policy, Department of Finance]

Thank you very much for the question.

We do not anticipate a large impact on FINTRAC for this. The decision of whether to enter into a compliance agreement or not is a decision that is normally part of the process in issuing an administrative monetary penalty by the centre, so with this amendment, it will carry through in that same process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Does that clarify it, Tom?

You're okay.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 111 as amended agreed to on division)

There are no amendments to clauses 112 to 128.

(Clauses 112 to 128 inclusive agreed to on division)

Do we still have the same group of witnesses? No, we don't.

Thank you very much, Mr. Saint-Denis and Ms. Davidson.

We'll go to division 3, the Employment Equity Act. There's division 4 as well.

We have with us Ms. Zagler and Ms. Choudhury.

As well, we have Mr. Millar, who is Director General, Corporate Finance, Natural Resources and Environment, with the Department of Finance.

(On clause 129)

The first amendment is CPC-2. Who's speaking to it?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

It's pretty simple. It's to amend the formula. I also think it might be a little mislabelled. Sorry, it's CPC-3. I have it here. It removes the “D” out of the calculation. That was from when the officials were here last time and they explained to us what was going to happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

CPC-2 is the one we're dealing with.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Sorry. They're all in a bunch. It was all at the same time for me.

Basically, what this would do is not consider the monies paid out in this program for the carbon rebate. During the discussion with officials it came out that in the different provisions inside that, in the different parts of this algebraic formula that's been agreed to, all the monies collected by the carbon tax as a backstop on all the provinces which are being forced to have a carbon tax can be dispensed with in any way the government wishes.

I know there have been political things said and commitments made publicly, but the law that's being passed, which has an impact on people, is that the government can issue an infrastructure program or set up a new social program of any sort and all the money spent within it would be considered as having been rebated to the public. I think that's the opposite of the impression the public has about what they're going to be getting.

My next three amendments deal with different components of that fact. This one would amend the formula to not consider the monies paid out of the CRF to ministers for federal programs when computing the carbon rebate for provinces. This was long debated. Algebra is not my forte. I went over it a lot just to make sure this does work. I don't think removing just that one part of the formula breaks it. It just makes certain that there's some honesty involved in this so that it's very clear that what the government committed to publicly is what the law actually says is going to happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are a few issues here.

First of all, by removing the definition and references to “other specified ministers”, the proposed amendments would limit, I fear, the authority to return direct proceeds from the carbon pollution fuel charge to the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance. The proposed amendments, as such, should be defeated as they undermine the purpose of the provisions, namely, to allow ministers other than the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance to return direct proceeds from the carbon pollution fuel charge to provinces under the federal pollution pricing system.

I'm sure my colleague will offer a rebuttal to what I've said. It almost goes without saying, Mr. Chair, that I'll disagree with him in advance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Never.

Okay, it's open for further debate.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I see my microphone is on so I can't help myself.

The one I am proposing to eliminate here would actually not do that. I am specifically trying to eliminate the ability of the government to designate a program and say that it is as if it were equal to the rebate. I think most people are expecting to get the rebate. I think the government has committed to it on their taxes, so that's what this change would be.

I just want what was said publicly to be what is legislated. That's all. It's just keeping it consistent to that point. I think the vast majority of the public, especially in the province of Alberta, don't like the carbon tax. Our carbon tax in our province is ending as of later this week and the backstop begins June 1.

The vast majority of the public in Alberta at the very minimum are aware that they are supposed to be getting it as a rebate on their income taxes. That's what the government has committed to. I don't want programs and infrastructure programs to be created and there be the pretense that's the rebating mechanism by which it will be done.

That's the last point I want to make on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I do wish to point out to all my colleagues that, as has been reported, over 97% of Canadians, when filing their income taxes, also checked off the box for receiving the climate action incentive rebate. That is wonderful to hear.