Finance committee  For clause 70, i's the same explanation.

Finance committee  Essentially, it's the same thing. CRA will be able to require some information in an electronic fashion from banks and credit unions.

Finance committee  Clause 71 is a consequential amendment to the amendment that is found in the Income Tax Act in this bill. You can see that the title is “Proof of electronic delivery”. Usually, it was served personally. There was a paper trail. In this case, a CRA official would be able to provide an electronic copy of the message that was sent to the banks and credit unions to prove that it was sent.

Finance committee  No. In this case, the previous French and English versions established the same program. However, French and English are sometimes drafted differently. Often, in the preamble, the French has many more words than the English. The principles of legislative drafting that the Department of Justice wants us to use ask us not to open a very long provision to make changes to the entire provision, if there is only one little change up here and another little change down there.

Finance committee  Yes.

Finance committee  Clause 72 is a similar amendment, an identical amendment, consequential to the amendment in the Income Tax Act, but in this case it's not the Excise Tax Act, it's the Air Travellers Security Charge Act. It's to allow CRA to deliver a request for information in an electronic format.

Finance committee  Yes. (Clause 67 agreed to on division) (On clause 68)

Finance committee  On clause 66, as I said, clauses 65 to 80 are all the same thing. They're on the electronic delivery of information, so I can repeat the same explanation if you want.

Finance committee  It's a consequential amendment to the income tax amendment with respect to the electronic requests for information to banks and credit unions. (Clause 66 agreed to on division) (On clause 67)

Finance committee  Hi. Essentially, clause 65 contains the same amendment that is found in clause 55 for the Income Tax Act. It's a consequential amendment, and it basically deals with the requests for information to be delivered electronically to banks and credit unions. I'm also going to add that clauses 65 to 80 are exactly the same thing as clauses 55 to 57 on the Income Tax Act, but some amendments apply to the Excise Tax Act, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001, and the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which are all acts that are administered by the CRA, and since the administrative rules in these acts are usually similar, when there's a change in one act, CRA usually wants to change all the acts to facilitate their administration.

Finance committee  Clause 68 is a clause that allows CRA to make requests for information from banks and credit unions in an electronic format. This was actually a request from banks and credit unions, because they found that receiving paper was not very efficient, and now they'll be able to receive these electronically through a direct passway with CRA.

Finance committee  It's taxed at zero. It's one of the means to provide a relief under the GST.

Finance committee  To the GST aspect, if it's a prescription drug, with the prescription, with the DIN number, that is basically a prescription. It's an order given by a medical doctor, for example, to a pharmacist to basically fill the prescription. In that situation, the drug would be zero-rated.

Finance committee  This amendment has no impact. Essentially, it provides that a consideration for the product that is not subject to tax is zero. That's why the amendment is unnecessary. Essentially the motion, the way it's worded, uses the expression “prescription cannabis drug”. This is already defined under the Excise Act, 2001.

Finance committee  It would add words to the legislation that would have no effect. Usually Parliament doesn't speak to say nothing.