Finance Committee on June 1st, 2021

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I really appreciate that last one, because that is a very difficult thing to do. There's no doubt about that, but could you explain the export from Canada...? You touched on it for minute. Could you explain the background? Why are you doing that?

[Yannick Mondy]

Do you mean the “sold for export to Canada”?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Yes, exactly: “sold for export”.

[Yannick Mondy]

Yes. If I'm not mistaken, that is actually in clause 213.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We'll come to that. We'll wait till we get there.

Are there any further questions?

(Clause 210 agreed to on division)

(On clause 211)

[Yannick Mondy]

Clause 211 amends section 33.4 of the Customs Act, which currently imposes an obligation to pay interest on duties owing on imported goods from the day after liability to pay occurs. The intent of the change is to establish in regulation the point when the interest will start accruing, as well as to allow an interest-free period to pay duties in respect of goods released prior to accounting, which is effectively most commercial importations. This interest-free period in regulation is subject to limits that are being created in this subsection and that will be at least 12 days and no more than 18 days.

The intent here of these amendments is together to facilitate the establishment in regulation of a single harmonized payment due date for all goods released prior to accounting, rather than being separated by due dates strictly fixed on the number of days after each importation.

(Clause 211 agreed to on division)

(On clause 212)

[Yannick Mondy]

Clause 212 adds a clarification to section 35 of the Customs Act that imposes an obligation on a person to comply with the terms and conditions of the deposit, bond or other security that the person has given. The terms and conditions for bonds and other securities are established in regulations currently under existing paragraph 166(1)(b) of the act.

The intent of this provision is to make clear that the person who provided the deposit, bond or security to allow the release of the goods prior to their accounting must abide by the terms and conditions that accompany those securities.

(Clause 212 agreed to on division)

(On clause 213)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Now we're on clause 213, and Tamara has a question on this.

[Yannick Mondy]

This amendment proposes to amend the existing section 45 of the Customs Act to introduce a definition of “sold for export to Canada”, which currently appears in Customs Act regulations.

To answer your question as to the rationale for this, in certain circumstances, purchasers may be paying duties on the lower price, and usually, this happens when an importer is not the purchaser in Canada, for example, a non-resident importer that is importing on behalf of a retailer located in Canada, or a foreign company that is doing a transaction on behalf of its Canadian subsidiary.

By defining “sold for export to Canada”, the idea is to clarify the amount on which duties owed to the government must be based upon, and to ensure that all importers are on a level playing field by using the same transaction, which is to say the last sale prior to export to a purchaser in Canada, rather than the value of a prior transaction in the supply chain that happens between two foreign entities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Does that answer your question, Tamara? Good.

(Clause 213 agreed to on division)

(On clause 214)

[Yannick Mondy]

Currently, subsection 97.22(2) and 97.22(3) of the Customs Act establish in statute when an amount and interest owing are a debt that is due to Her Majesty. Clause 214 amends these to allow purchasers to cluster duty payments on multiple items acquired over a specific period of time into a single payment. It also adds a clarification in English that a notice under section 124 is served, and it also makes a minor adjustment to the French version to better reflect the English version by adding “chef du Canada” to “Sa Majesté” to harmonize with the English version.

(Clause 214 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're on clause 215, Yannick.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think we'd be prepared to allow to go on division clauses 215 to 219, if you wish.

(On clauses 215 to 219)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any explanations? Do you want to give a quick heads-up, Ms. Mondy?

If there was any further explanation on 215 to 219, you could make it, and we'll see them as one.

[Yannick Mondy]

Essentially, they're of the same nature, they either make changes to interest owed or penalties owed to ensure that there's a single harmonized billing system. This is consistent throughout 214 to 218, to do changes on various forms of monies that are owed to the Crown based on different penalties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

(Clauses 215 to 219 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 220)

Thank you very much, Ms. Mondy and Mr. Vragovic.

I see you're both here for the next one too. It's division 20, Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act. The floor is yours on clause 220.

[Yannick Mondy]

I would like to invite for this one Marie-Hélène Cantin, who should be in the waiting room, for this particular division.

This clause establishes that there's an amendment to section 16 of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act to require the concurrence of the Minister of Finance when the minister responsible for international trade appoints or proposes the names of individuals for rosters, panels and committees established under that agreement for chapter 10, which relates to trade remedies dispute settlement mechanisms. These amendments are technical in administrative nature, and also maintain Canada's long-standing approach in this area for other agreements as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any thoughts?

(Clause 220 agreed to on division)

Thank you, Ms. Mondy, and others who were with you.

We'll now turn to division 21, I believe the lead is Lorraine Pelot.

[Lorraine Pelot, Director General, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There are no amendments on clauses 221 to 245.

Do we have authority to group them?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think we'll group them this time. You've done your job in moving us forward, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Good. Thank you, all.

Are there any explanations needed here? There are no amendments.

(Clauses 221 to 245 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 246)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Ms. Pelot.

Turning then to division 22, Canada Labour Code, equal remuneration protection, we have clause 246. Barbara Moran is with us on division 22.

A BQ-6 amendment is in place there, so we'll turn to the Bloc.

Gabriel.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This part addresses what we call the transfer of contracts. This often involves subcontractors that provide services at airports. The system works on a competitive bidding basis. We've seen the following scheme: a new company or the same company acting under a different name bids at a lower cost and, once the company obtains the contract, it lowers the wages and working conditions of its employees.

Under this provision, the subcontractor can't lower wages. Most of the time, since the jobs are specialized, the same workers are hired. We welcome this part of Bill C-30. However, we want to go further. We want to ensure that, not only will the wages be maintained, but that all the working conditions under the previous contract will also be maintained. Our goal is to prevent the new providers from bidding lower with the goal of lowering working conditions in general. This is about ensuring that these conditions are maintained.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ste-Marie, I will have to make a ruling on this one.

The amendment replaces paragraph 47.3(2) of the Canada Labour Code, to add that in the case of a transfer of employer, the new employer must provide employees who are providing the services with rights and benefits that are not limited to remuneration.

The act presently is silent in regard to the rights and benefits of employees. Therefore, the amendment goes beyond its scope, as adopted at second reading by the House. Per page 772 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, the amendment is out of order.

With that, on clause 246, are explanations needed from Ms. Moran?

Mrs. Jansen.