Evidence of meeting #140 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
Thanks, Chair.
Before I make my last plea, I just want to clear up some misinformation by Ms. Dzerowicz. In fact, the Bank of Canada's governor sat there and said that the carbon tax scam does contribute to inflation. In fact, 0.6% of the overall inflation number is because of the carbon tax, which also impacts housing, because the inflation—
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to make that clarification. If Ms. Dzerowicz thinks the carbon tax doesn't impact the trucker who's shipping the material to build those houses, and consequently the farmers who are growing the food, and the trucker who's shipping the food, and the people who are retailing the food, then I think it just goes to show how out of touch and out of reality the Liberal government is. It just proves how out of touch they are about this carbon tax scam. That's what we're concerned about—that Mark Carney is just as out of touch and doesn't understand the pain of Canadians.
The carbon tax has a huge impact on people's lives, whether it's housing or groceries. It's also a factor in why people are going into food banks. It's now two million, in fact, and a million more this year. This fact flies over Liberals' heads, because they're so ideologically obsessed with their woke, extremist view on this carbon tax scam.
In closing, I just want to throw it out there that if the Liberals and the NDP want to pass Bill C-59, we're willing to do it right now. We could get it done with a vote right now. If this coalition agrees to pass our motion right now, as amended by Mr. Lawrence, we can get both things cleared up right now, within the next minute. That's all we ask for. Let's get both things passed right now. We don't have to waste any more time.
Thank you.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Well, I'm glad there's an acknowledgement that they're wasting time.
Of course we can't do that, because there are amendments before the committee on Bill C-59. I think there are about 15 of them, and some of them are extremely important. A lot of them come from the witnesses themselves. I think all parties in the House have actually put forth amendments to Bill C-59. We can't actually pass Bill C-59 right now without dealing with the amendments. However, I will hold the Conservatives to their word, that as soon as this motion before us is dispensed with, we can move swiftly through Bill C-59 so that we can actually pass this legislation, get it back in the House and give Canadians and businesses the economic relief that they need and deserve.
It's funny; I always hear that the number one thing the business community needs is certainty. They can deal with all sorts of different policies, but what they really want is certainty. Here the Conservatives are, holding up Bill C-59, when business after business came to this committee and said they wanted these rules in place so they can plan their economic activity. Businesses are waiting to invest in environmental technology and in all sorts of investment decisions based on the provisions in this bill. The Conservatives are holding this up, leading to great uncertainty among businesses.
You know, in business, especially in this global world, time is money and things are moving quickly. While Canadian businesses have to hold off, other countries and businesses do not. In terms of what the Conservatives are doing here, they think they're being kind of cute in this room. That would be one thing, and that would be tolerable, but what they're really doing is hampering Canadian businesses and harming our interests on a global scale.
I move to adjourn the debate so that we can get to Bill C-59.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
There's no debate on this.
Is everybody in agreement that we adjourn the debate?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Okay. We will have a recorded vote on adjourning the debate.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Debate is adjourned, so that's it.
We are now moving back to clause-by-clause, beginning with clause 3.
(Clause 3 agreed to on division)
(On clause 4)
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Since we have officials here and we asked the question during the review of the bill.... I'll note that when we did this first part of the bill, we actually had only one round of questions with officials. I want to clarify whether we have the answer to two questions.
One, who is auditing the investment tax credits? Is that the CRA? Two, how many people are going to be hired as part of this bill?
Conservative
Liberal
Lindsay Gwyer Director General, Legislation, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
If the question is whether clause 4 relates to the investment tax credits, it does have some relationship with the investment tax credits. It's consequential amendments related to the investment tax credits.
In terms of the other question, I don't know if Max has an answer for that. There's no one from the CRA here. The CRA would be the one auditing it and responsible for it.
I don't know if Max has anything to add.
Maximilian Baylor Director General, Business Income Tax Division, Department of Finance
As they're investment tax credits, the Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for administering them and, therefore, will be responsible for the audit activities.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you very much.
As a follow-up question or comment, with every piece of legislation that's come to this committee, the same question gets asked every single time: How many people will be hired as part of the bill?
The CRA did not appear before this committee, despite being requested a couple of times. It's implicated in the bill. We had 20 hours' worth of witness testimony. CRA officials were unable or unwilling to appear to discuss the fact that they're going to be carrying out substantial activities, as described in the bill.
For all these reasons, I'm voting against them.
This may be my final question on the investment tax credits. I was under the impression that there were some other amendments potentially coming to the investment tax credits. Are there potential amendments that we may see in future legislation?
Director General, Legislation, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
First, Bill C-59 includes two investment tax credits. These are the investment tax credit for carbon capture and the investment tax credit for clean technology. There have been subsequent enhancements announced—not on the carbon capture tax credit, but on the clean technology tax credit—that are not in the bill. Those will be in a future bill.
There are also additional tax credits that will require some coordination between the multiple sets of tax credits. Those are also amendments that will be in a future bill.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
You're welcome, MP Chambers.
Shall clause 4 carry? We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 4 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 5)
Shall clause 5 carry?
There's a question on clause 5.
MP Lawrence.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you.
Of course, clause 5 is about employee ownership trusts. My question is whether the department has done any type of analysis—I guess that's the proper word—on how many transactions or how many businesses it hopes will utilize the employee ownership trust structure as it's laid out.
