Evidence of meeting #53 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jacques Maziade  Legislative Clerk
Darren D'Sa  Advisor, Tax Policy, Department of Finance

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Members may recall, in some discussions that happened around Bill C-17, that there was talk about the nature of the money that's being allocated for both housing and transit. I think some of the thinking there initially was that this was to help cover transit operating funds, and that does seem to largely be the purpose.

I think there's still a bit of mystery surrounding how exactly housing is meant to be tied to that funding. While I certainly support the federal government's providing financial support both to transit operators and for the purpose of housing, I think, just as a matter of good accounting, that it's important for Canadians to have an understanding of how that money will be spent, understanding that it's subject to negotiation with the provinces.

The proposal in this amendment is simply that the minister, within three months of making a payment, would essentially report to Parliament on the terms and conditions of that funding with a given province or territory, so that there is a record of the understanding that was reached between the federal government and the other government that money is being transferred to. That way, people have a sense of how their money is being spent.

That's the spirit of the amendment, Mr. Chair.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

I have three members who would like to speak to this. I have Mr. Ste-Marie, then Mr. Beech and then Mr. Albas.

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to applaud Mr. Blaikie's dedication and his always important contribution to the work of the committee and the House. He approaches issues in a thoughtful, progressive way and often comes up with solutions that lead to consensus.

On NDP‑4, his party and mine have diametrically opposed views. In our view, the money going to the province and the federal government comes from the same taxpayer. When a province spends money on a matter within its jurisdiction, it doesn't need to answer to the federal government, as far as I'm concerned. There is no hierarchy among the levels of government. The federal government is not above Quebec or the provinces.

Therefore, we object to the increased paperwork and control Ottawa wants to impose on Quebec and the provinces. We have total confidence in the governments elected by the citizens of each province. In our opinion, taxpayers are satisfied with paying 50¢ to the province and 50¢ to Ottawa for a given expenditure. For that reason, I will be voting against the NDP's amendment, even though I do want to say what a privilege it is to work alongside Mr. Blaikie on the committee.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Merci, Mr. Ste-Marie.

We have Mr. Beech and then Mr. Albas.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC

I'll compliment Gabriel on how well he said that, despite not supporting it. I think this is a fair measure, and we're happy to support it.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, Mr. Beech.

Mr. Albas.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

We will be supporting the amendment. I will not be giving further praise to Mr. Blaikie. I'm sure his constituents don't want him to lose perspective from his head growing, but in all seriousness we want to see more accountability from this government. I would like to see the minister start showing up a little more at this committee. We still have an outstanding study on inflation, for which she's intended to come for three hours. Perhaps at some point we may want to have her come back, if this amendment is supported.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Members, shall NDP-4 carry?

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Chair, I request a recorded division.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

We'll have a recorded vote, Clerk, please.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Members, shall clause 180 as amended carry?

(Clause 180 as amended agreed to on division)

There are no amendments submitted to clauses 181 to 236. They are all in part 5 of the bill. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for a vote?

Seeing no dissent, shall clauses 181 to 236 carry?

(Clauses 181 to 236 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 237)

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

That brings us to clause 237. On clause 237 there's an amendment from the Conservatives, CPC-10.

Mr. Albas, would you like to move that amendment?

May 31st, 2022 / 12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move this motion. Both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.... I will just note that technically we put our platform out first in the last election, so it was our idea first to ban foreign buyers from the residential real estate market in Canada. Then the Liberals soon after decided they would follow suit.

Now the challenge in this, Mr. Chair, is that there are so many loopholes in this so-called foreign buyers ban. At committee, I asked simple questions, and at the technical briefing I asked simple questions that seemed to enunciate that a foreign national could still purchase a home in Canada. If a family gets separated because a spouse leaves, they can purchase another home, and their children, when they turn 18, can purchase another home, so there are so many different loopholes in this that I don't think it is really a forceful mechanism, and I think it was designed like that.

Second to note is that I still don't understand how the mechanism is to work in terms of how we will know who is purchasing properties. As you know, Mr. Chair, most of these assets are recorded provincially, so whether or not the authorities would have information available federally is still in question.

Setting those aside, the purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chair, is that despite those differences, we believe that the biggest loophole has been reserved for the government itself. In fact, if you look at the enabling legislation here in Bill C-19, it actually gives the Governor in Council, in this case the cabinet, the right to decide when it comes into force. While members of the NDP and the Liberals can go home to their constituencies and say, “Look, I voted in favour of a ban against foreign buyers in the residential market,” essentially cabinet has a law whereby it could say it's never going to have it come into force.

Mr. Chair, we believe that the Liberals made the commitment that they would ban foreign buyers. I don't necessarily think it captures what the government says it intended to in that original commitment, but we think there should at least be some certainty for the market. I've seen on Twitter—and, of course, we should always bear in mind that when we see something on Twitter, we shouldn't always take it as real—that some realtors actually say that the federal government has banned foreign buyers, when it has only introduced legislation in this bill do to so.

In order for there to be certainty in the industry so that realtors are made aware of that and can inform their clients that they may inadvertently be misaligned with the law, we just think it's easier to set an enforcement date, so everyone knows it. Then the government would, I think, at least keep its word to the Canadian people in a sensible and straightforward way. That is why we are suggesting that clause 235 should come into force on January 1, 2023. We think that between the passage of this bill and over the summer and into the winter months, the industry stakeholders could be consulted. They would know that that was the date on which it would come into force, and they would become better acquainted with the rules, rather than having the status quo that's in this bill, whereby you have a ban that really isn't a ban and a law that may never actually become law.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Beech's hand is up.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC

I will resist taking this opportunity to describe the differences between the Conservative platform and the Liberal platform, especially on housing. I will say that we did look at whether or not we could use something like “on or before” that date. However, I think there is something elegant about the January 1 date in terms of that coming into force and it being well timed with the calendar year. We'll be supporting the motion.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, Mr. Beech.

Mr. Blaikie.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

I'm also happy to offer my support for this change in the coming into force date. I appreciate Mr. Albas's highlighting some of the shortcomings in the details of the ban. It will be a good opportunity, both as part of a package and, I think, as one of various ways we are all trying to impress upon the government the need to introduce more measures that could have the effect of cooling the housing market.

This is just one that really needs to be part of a larger package, a package that I think is not yet sufficient but that I hope will get there. I have had the opportunity to speak about some other measures that we on our side of the House think are important around real estate, investment trusts and some other factors. I think that this is part of a package and that the proposal to have a clear coming into force date for this makes sense.

Thank you, Mr. Albas, for the suggestion. I'm happy to support it.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Members, shall CPC-10 carry?

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Unanimously.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Unanimously, is what I hear from Mr. Ste-Marie.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 237 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Members, there are no amendments submitted for clauses 238 to 298. Clauses 238 to 298 are all in part 5 of the bill.

Again, do we have unanimous consent to group those for a vote? It looks like we do.

(Clauses 238 to 298 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 299)

There is an amendment from the Bloc, BQ-12.

Mr. Ste-Marie, do you wish to move this amendment?

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not really sure why BQ‑12 and BQ‑13 are subject to the consideration of the Standing Committee on Finance when they have to do with the Correctional Service of Canada. They pertain to clauses that appear in the budget implementation bill but that have nothing to do with the committee's work.

Once again, I would recommend that the government bring forward several bills rather than lumping everything into a single mammoth bill. That way, the Standing Committee on Finance would not have to examine legal text that deals with the detention of inmates and body cavity searches. I can't believe the finance committee is the one examining these provisions.

BQ‑12 and BQ‑13 seek to amend the French version of the bill, which refers to the term “cellule nue”. That expression could lead to a misunderstanding of the type of detention in question. The inmate is not being detained à nu, or naked; rather, they are being detained in a cell without plumbing, or “cellule dépourvue d'installation sanitaire”. The purpose of the amendment is to bring clarity to the legal text.

I would like to thank my fellow member and our justice critic, Rhéal Fortin, for working on these two amendments with our legislative drafters, who did an outstanding job.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Merci, Mr. Ste-Marie. Thank you for help with that translation.

I see Mr. Beech's and Mr. Albas's hands are up.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that despite the size of the bill, it was a very thorough analysis to catch a difference between the French and the English and to improve the drafting language. We will support these amendments.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, Mr. Beech.

Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My French isn't very good, but I support the French language, and the bill should use the right terminology in French.

For that reason, the Conservative Party will be supporting these amendments.