Finance Committee on May 5th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

We are moving to the NDP.

Welcome to our committee, MP Gazan. You have six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair. It's a real privilege to be on this committee today. I have big shoes to fill, as you all know.

My first question relates to division 30 of the BIA, which amends the Canada Business Corporations Act.

It's my understanding that this section would establish a public and searchable beneficial ownership registry. I'm hoping that officials will be able to describe what the changes to the legislation will accomplish to get us closer to establishing that.

[Jennifer Miller]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to respond to this question on the establishment of a beneficial ownership registry.

The changes in the BIA are intended to be a first and concrete step toward establishing that registry, so there are things the government is proposing to do immediately to make progress in the near term. This would obviously be the ability for the information to be sent to and held by Corporations Canada. That's the very important first step.

Also, a very important step for Corporations Canada is to be able to hold onto that information and not immediately publish it, subject to the development of privacy and security protocols for the information. We need to make sure that the information is treated appropriately, which will be an intermediate step, and share it in the meantime with appropriate enforcement agencies—FINTRAC or other entities—that would be prescribed by regulation so that there is also that control over the initial distribution.

The remainder of the amendments required to fully establish the public and searchable registry would require some consultation with stakeholders on the specifics of the implementation and the management of certain privacy considerations,. So they will be consulted and the feedback returned as soon as possible.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much for your answer.

I'm wondering when the government will be moving to implement these changes with additional legislation. Can we expect to see the next steps in the fall economic update?

[Jennifer Miller]

Unfortunately, I can't speak specifically to the government's future legislative plan for those amendments, but I can indicate, because of the accelerated timeline that has been announced as part of budget 2022, that the work plan toward defining and proposing those amendments will be greatly accelerated. There will be a consultation process in short order, and then the finalization of work required to put them forward.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's no secret that the EI system is broken. We certainly saw that when the pandemic hit. Government on the fly had to create an entirely new suite of benefits to get money to people who were unable to work in accordance with public health advice in a quick and efficient way. It's no secret that I've been pushing for a guaranteed livable basic income with Bill C-223 to make sure that everybody can live in dignity.

I will continue to push for that, but in the interim, though, the EI process needs to be fixed. You know that I've been on other committees where officials, working in the area, have called the system archaic. I know there are consultations that have been ongoing about ways to modernize this dinosaur system.

My understanding is that division 32 of the BIA will establish an employment insurance board of appeal and limit the social security tribunal. This has been a longstanding commitment of the government. We in the NDP are hearing that these changes fall short of the commitments to create truly tripartite and accountable appeal structures. I'm hoping that the officials could speak to the intent of their amendments, as well as what those amendments would actually do.

[Rouba Dabboussy, Director General, Benefits and Integrated Services Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Good afternoon. I will speak to that.

The intent is, in fact, to launch a tripartite board of appeal. It will include approximately the same number of members from GIC appointees, as well as members representing labour, employers and workers.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much for that.

The GIS reference in division 24 offers a technical amendment that will firm up changes in the previous legislation.

The government is ensuring that accessing pandemic benefits does not negatively impact recipients of GIS and the calculation of the GIS. We certainly saw that in my riding with many seniors. This change had a huge impact on the lives of seniors in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, the third poorest riding in the country.

Another issue that my office is being contacted about is the Canada child benefit, which is impacted in the same way the GIS is by the interaction of pandemic benefits in the calculation. I'm wondering if any of the officials on the call could comment if they've been asked by government to draft fixes to the similar issue with the Canada child benefit that will have a huge impact on the lives of low-income families.

[Kristen Underwood, Director General, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Division 24 refers to a change that was made around GIS eligibility for those who were getting the 75-plus increase. It's not specific to the changes that you're talking about, but indeed those changes did go through this year. The CCB is a separate issue, and not part of these pieces. The officials who are on the line for those pieces of the GIS are not at liberty, or don't have the information, to talk to you about the CCB.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Gazan. That's the time.

We're moving to our second round.

MP Albas from the Conservatives is up for five minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all of the officials who are here for their service to our great country.

I'd like to start with division 4, “Payments in Relation to Transit and Housing”. I'm piggybacking on MP MacDonald's work.

First, I'll make a quick comment. The member of Parliament for Vancouver East has commented previously on the government's record on allocating the national housing fund's mechanisms fairly, and that B.C. did not receive it.

Let's start by asking this. In this maximum payment of $750 million, is there anything in this particular clause—which, by the way, is about 80 words long for $750 million—that limits this or provides a way for this to be fairly allotted to each province and territory?

[Galen Countryman]

Mr. Chair, I'll respond to that question.

The funds for this measure will be allocated based on the formula already used for the public transit stream of the investing in Canada infrastructure program. It's calculated on a mix of transit ridership, with a 70% weight, and population, with a 30% weight. That's how it's allocated across jurisdictions.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Again, going back to Mr. MacDonald's point, urban centres will be far more likely to receive these funds. Is that correct?

[Galen Countryman]

Because the primary focus was on transit, where there are urban centres, the allocation was based on that.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay. But again, this can mean that the minister has sole discretion as follows:

Any amount payable under subsection (1) may be paid by the Minister of Finance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at the times and in the manner, and on any terms and conditions, that the [Minister] considers appropriate.

That is a lot of latitude, is that not, sir?

[Galen Countryman]

This is just how that section is provided—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Well, I understand that you have a difficult job, and I'm not going to make it more difficult than that. What I will say, though, is that I am concerned about, as MP MacDonald said, the fairness and allocation of this.

I would like to move to division 12, entitled “Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act”. I've noticed that there were a number of loopholes in the budget, and in the budget implementation act there seems to be a whole host of them.

First, I'd like to first confirm the enabling provision with regard to the coming into force:

237(1) Section 235 comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

That ultimately means that Parliament can approve this, and give royal assent, but the government can choose to bring it into force or not, at its total discretion. Is that correct?

[Robert Sample, Director General, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, that's correct that the government would bring the prohibition into force at a later date, on its choosing, via an order in council.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you very much.

Under “Non-application”, which is proposed subsection 4(5), it states:

Subsection (1) does not apply if the non-Canadian becomes liable or assumes liability under an agreement of purchase and sale of the residential property before the day on which this Act comes into force.

Essentially, for anyone who wants to purchase a property, regardless of the big holes in the exemptions the government has talked about with regard to this, and will probably deal with through regulation, none of this matters if the government never puts it into force. Is that correct?

[Robert Sample]

Yes. The prohibition will be applicable only when the Governor in Council approves an OIC to bring it into force. What this provision does is essentially grandfather—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

That's okay. I don't need to know that particular part, sir.

Just quickly, under the definitions sections, it states that “control has the meaning assigned by the regulations”. Essentially, by control I'm assuming you mean beneficial ownership. How precisely is the minister going to be able to make an application to a court that someone has violated this? How will the minister be alerted to that?

[Robert Sample]

Speaking on the provision of control, control of a corporation is an additional policy that's being worked through now and will be brought through via a statutory instrument at a later date. Should a superior court or a provincial court find that there has been a contravention to the prohibition, as you have outlined, the minister could then apply to the court for a judicial sale of the property.

Thank you.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

We're moving now to the Liberals and MP Dzerowicz for five minutes, please.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I too want to thank all the officials for being with us today.

My first question is about the Copyright Act. There is a change under clause 276 of the budget implementation act. It talks about a period of “70 years”. Is the change from 50 years to 70 years? Can someone clarify that?