Bill C-19

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures by
(a) providing a Labour Mobility Deduction for the temporary relocation of tradespeople to a work location;
(b) allowing for the immediate expensing of eligible property by certain Canadian businesses;
(c) allowing the Children’s Special Allowance to be paid in respect of a child who is maintained by an Indigenous governing body and providing consistent tax treatment of kinship care providers and foster parents receiving financial assistance from an Indigenous governing body and those receiving such assistance from a provincial government;
(d) doubling the allowable qualifying expense limit under the Home Accessibility Tax Credit;
(e) expanding the criteria for the mental functions impairment eligibility as well as the life-sustaining therapy category eligibility for the Disability Tax Credit;
(f) providing clarity in respect of the determination of the one-time additional payment under the GST/HST tax credit for the period 2019-2020;
(g) changing the delivery of Climate Action Incentive payments from a refundable credit claimed annually to a credit that is paid quarterly;
(h) temporarily extending the period for incurring eligible expenses and other deadlines under film or video production tax credits;
(i) providing a tax incentive for specified zero-emission technology manufacturing activities;
(j) providing the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) the discretion to accept late applications for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and the Canada Recovery Hiring Program;
(k) including postdoctoral fellowship income in the definition of “earned income” for RRSP purposes;
(l) enabling registered charities to enter into charitable partnerships with organizations other than qualified donees under certain conditions;
(m) allowing automatic and immediate revocation of the registration of an organization as a charity where that organization is listed as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code ;
(n) enabling the CRA to use taxpayer information to assist in the collection of Canada Emergency Business Account loans; and
(o) expanding capital cost allowance deductions to include new clean energy equipment.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act , the Children’s Special Allowances Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , the Income Tax Regulations and the Children’s Special Allowance Regulations .
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) ensuring that all assignment sales in respect of newly constructed or substantially renovated residential housing are taxable supplies for GST/HST purposes; and
(b) extending eligibility for the expanded hospital rebate to health care services supplied by charities or non-profit organizations with the active involvement of, or on the recommendation of, either a physician or a nurse practitioner, irrespective of their geographic location.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act, 2001 , the Excise Act and other related texts in order to implement three measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 implements a new federal excise duty framework for vaping products by, among other things,
(a) requiring that manufacturers of vaping products obtain a vaping licence from the CRA;
(b) requiring that all vaping products that are removed from the premises of a vaping licensee to be entered into the Canadian market for retail sale be affixed with an excise stamp;
(c) imposing excise duties on vaping products to be paid by vaping product licensees;
(d) providing for administration and enforcement rules related to the excise duty framework on vaping products;
(e) providing the Governor in Council with authority to provide for an additional excise duty in respect of provinces and territories that enter into a coordinated vaping product taxation agreement with Canada; and
(f) making related amendments to other legislative texts, including to allow for a coordinated federal/provincial-territorial vaping product taxation system and to ensure that the excise duty framework applies properly to imported vaping products.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the excise duty exemption under the Excise Act, 2001 for wine produced in Canada and composed wholly of agricultural or plant product grown in Canada.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act to eliminate excise duty for beer containing no more than 0.5% alcohol by volume.
Part 4 enacts the Select Luxury Items Tax Act . That Act creates a new taxation regime for domestic sales, and importations into Canada, of certain new motor vehicles and aircraft priced over $100,000 and certain new boats priced over $250,000. It provides that the tax applies if the total price or value of the subject select luxury item at the time of sale or importation exceeds the relevant price threshold. It provides that the tax is to be calculated at the lesser of 10% of the total price of the item and 20% of the total price of the item that exceeds the relevant price threshold. To promote compliance with the new taxation regime, that Act includes modern elements of administration and enforcement aligned with those found in other taxation statutes. Finally, this Part also makes related and consequential amendments to other texts to ensure proper implementation of the new tax and to ensure a cohesive and efficient administration by the CRA.
Division 1 of Part 5 retroactively renders a provision of the contract that is set out in the schedule to An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway , chapter 1 of the Statutes of Canada, 1881, to be of no force or effect. It retroactively extinguishes any obligations and liabilities of Her Majesty in right of Canada and any rights and privileges of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company arising out of or acquired under that provision.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act to give force of law to the entire Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement during the period that that Taxation Agreement is, by its terms, in force.
Division 3 of Part 5 repeals the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act .
It also amends the Income Tax Act to exempt from taxation under that Act any income earned by the Safe Drinking Water Trust in accordance with the Settlement Agreement entered into on September 15, 2021 relating to long-term drinking water quality for impacted First Nations.
Division 4 of Part 5 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of addressing transit shortfalls and needs and improving housing supply and affordability.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act by adding the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and one other member to that Corporation’s Board of Directors.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to, among other things, count previously excluded borrowings made in the spring of 2021 in the calculation of the maximum amount that may be borrowed. It also amends the Financial Administration Act to change certain reporting requirements in relation to amounts borrowed under orders made under paragraph 46.1(c) of that Act.
Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to, among other things, permit the establishment of a solvency reserve account in the pension fund of certain defined benefit plans and require the establishment of governance policies for all pension plans.
Division 9 of Part 5 amends the Special Import Measures Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that assessments of injury are to take into account impacts on workers;
(b) require the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to make inquiries with respect to massive importations when it is acting under section 42 of that Act;
(c) require that Tribunal to initiate expiry reviews of certain orders and findings;
(d) modify the deadline for notifying the government of the country of export of properly documented complaints;
(e) modify the criteria for imposing duties in cases of massive importations;
(f) modify the criteria for initiating anti-circumvention investigations; and
(g) remove the requirement that, in order to find circumvention, the principal cause of the change in a pattern of trade must be the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties.
It also amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act to provide that trade unions may, with the support of domestic producers, file global safeguard complaints.
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, modernize corporate governance communications of financial institutions.
Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Insurance Companies Act to permit property and casualty companies and marine companies to not include the value of certain debt obligations when calculating their borrowing limit.
Division 12 of Part 5 enacts the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act . The Act prohibits the purchase of residential property in Canada by non-Canadians unless they are exempted by the Act or its regulations or the purchase is made in certain circumstances specified in the regulations.
Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Parliament of Canada Act and makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts to, among other things,
(a) change the additional annual allowances that are paid to senators who occupy certain positions so that the government’s representatives and the Opposition in the Senate are eligible for the allowances for five positions each and the three other recognized parties or parliamentary groups in the Senate with the greatest number of members are eligible for the allowances for four positions each;
(b) provide that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate are to be consulted on the appointment of certain officers and agents of Parliament; and
(c) provide that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate may change the membership of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Division 14 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act in order to, among other things, allow the Treasury Board to provide certain services to certain entities.
Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to enhance the Commissioner of Competition’s investigative powers, criminalize wage fixing and related agreements, increase maximum fines and administrative monetary penalties, clarify that incomplete price disclosure is a false or misleading representation, expand the definition of anti-competitive conduct, allow private access to the Competition Tribunal to remedy an abuse of dominance and improve the effectiveness of the merger notification requirements and other provisions.
Division 16 of Part 5 amends the Copyright Act to extend certain terms of copyright protection, including the general term, from 50 to 70 years after the life of the author and, in doing so, implements one of Canada’s obligations under the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement.
Division 17 of Part 5 amends the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that the College has sufficient independence and flexibility to exercise its corporate functions;
(b) provide statutory immunity to certain persons involved in the regulatory activities of the College; and
(c) grant powers to the Registrar and Investigations Committee that will allow for improved efficiency in the complaints and discipline process.
Division 18 of Part 5 enacts the Civil Lunar Gateway Agreement Implementation Act to implement Canada’s obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil Lunar Gateway. It provides for powers to protect confidential information provided under the Memorandum. It also makes related amendments to the Criminal Code to extend its application to activities related to the Lunar Gateway and to the Government Employees Compensation Act to address the cross-waiver of liability set out in the Memorandum.
Division 19 of Part 5 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to restrict the use of detention in dry cells to cases where the institutional head has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate has ingested contraband or that contraband is being carried in the inmate’s rectum.
Division 20 of Part 5 amends the Customs Act in order to authorize its administration and enforcement by electronic means and to provide that the importer of record of goods is jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable to pay duties on the goods under section 17 of that Act with the importer or person authorized to account for the goods, as the case may be, and the owner of the goods.
Division 21 of Part 5 amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of wilfully promoting antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust through statements communicated other than in private conversation.
Division 22 of Part 5 amends the Judges Act , the Federal Courts Act , the Tax Court of Canada Act and certain other acts to, among other things,
(a) implement the Government of Canada’s response to the report of the sixth Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding salaries and benefits and to create the office of supernumerary prothonotary of the Federal Court;
(b) increase the number of judges for certain superior courts and include the new offices of Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick and Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan;
(c) create the offices of prothonotary and supernumerary prothonotary of the Tax Court of Canada; and
(d) replace the term “prothonotary” with “associate judge”.
Division 23 of Part 5 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions establishing categories of foreign nationals for the purposes of determining to whom an invitation to make an application for permanent residence is to be issued, as well as instructions setting out the economic goal that that Minister seeks to support in establishing the category;
(b) prevent an officer from issuing a visa or other document to a foreign national invited in respect of an established category if the foreign national is not in fact eligible to be a member of that category;
(c) require that the annual report to Parliament on the operation of that Act include a description of any instructions that establish a category of foreign nationals, the economic goal sought to be supported in establishing the category and the number of foreign nationals invited to make an application for permanent residence in respect of the category; and
(d) authorize that Minister to give instructions respecting the class of permanent residents in respect of which a foreign national must apply after being issued an invitation, if the foreign national is eligible to be a member of more than one class.
Division 24 of Part 5 amends the Old Age Security Act to correct a cross-reference in that Act to the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 .
Division 25 of Part 5
(a) amends the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a worker who received, for a four-week period, an income support payment and who received, for any week during the four-week period, any benefit, allowance or money referred to in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of that Act;
(b) amends the Canada Emergency Student Benefit Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a student who received, for a four-week period, a Canada emergency student benefit and who received, for any week during the four-week period, any benefit, allowance or money referred to in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of that Act; and
(c) amends the Employment Insurance Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a claimant who received, for any week, an employment insurance emergency response benefit and who received, for that week, any payment or benefit referred to in paragraph 153.9(2)(c) or (d) of that Act.
Division 26 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) replace employment benefits and support measures set out in Part II of that Act with employment support measures that are intended to help insured participants and other workers — including workers in groups underrepresented in the labour market — to obtain and keep employment; and
(b) allow the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to enter into agreements to provide for the payment of contributions to organizations for the costs of measures that they implement and that are consistent with the purpose and guidelines set out in Part II of that Act.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act .
Division 27 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers and to extend, until October 28, 2023, the increase in the maximum number of weeks for which those benefits may be paid. It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 to add a transitional measure in relation to amendments to the Employment Insurance Regulations that are found in that Act.
Division 28 of Part 5 amends the Canada Pension Plan to make corrections respecting
(a) the calculation of the minimum qualifying period and the contributory period for the purposes of the post-retirement disability benefit;
(b) the determination of values for contributors who have periods excluded from their contributory periods by reason of disability; and
(c) the attribution of amounts for contributors who have periods excluded from their contributory periods because they were family allowance recipients.
Division 29 of Part 5 amends An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) shorten the period before which an employee begins to earn one day of medical leave of absence with pay per month;
(b) standardize the conditions related to the requirement to provide a medical certificate following a medical leave of absence, regardless of whether the leave is paid or unpaid;
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in certain circumstances, including to modify certain provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay;
(d) ensure that, for the purposes of medical leave of absence, an employee who changes employers due to the lease or transfer of a work, undertaking or business or due to a contract being awarded through a retendering process is deemed to be continuously employed with one employer; and
(e) provide that the provisions relating to medical leave of absence come into force no later than December 1, 2022.
Division 30 of Part 5 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) require certain corporations to send to the Director appointed under that Act information on individuals with significant control on an annual basis or when a change occurs;
(b) allow that Director to provide all or part of that information to an investigative body, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada or any prescribed entity; and
(c) clarify that, for the purposes of subsection 21.1(7) of that Act, it is the securities of a corporation, not the corporation itself, that are listed and posted for trading on a designated stock exchange.
Division 31 of Part 5 amends the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to, among other things,
(a) create regimes allowing for the forfeiture of property that has been seized or restrained under those Acts;
(b) specify that the proceeds resulting from the disposition of those properties are to be used for certain purposes; and
(c) allow for the sharing of information between certain persons in certain circumstances.
It also makes amendments to the Seized Property Management Act in relation to those forfeiture of property regimes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first questions are for Mr. MacDonald, from Imagine Canada. Then, I will have questions for Mr. Rooke, from Cider Canada.

I want to begin by thanking all the witnesses for being here today. I really appreciated their opening statements, which were all very informative, especially Mr. Cochrane's.

Mr. MacDonald, we had an opportunity to meet with representatives of your organization to discuss the problems with Bill C‑19 at greater length. My understanding is that you would prefer Bill S‑216, because it does a better job of meeting the needs of the organizations you represent.

How do you think Bill C‑19 would impact equity-seeking groups wanting to work with charities?

Effective and Accountable Charities Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-216, an important bill supporting the good work in the charitable sector.

I will begin by expressing what we have seen over the last few years, particularly during this pandemic, and how important the work of so many has been, including the many who have gone above and beyond in the charitable sector in our communities to support people in this very difficult time. We saw during this pandemic that many were forced to turn to food banks and soup kitchens and needed help during this crisis. We know that thanks to the volunteering and contributions of many, Canadian charities across various sectors were able to step up.

I recognize the important work that has been done in northern Manitoba and across the country during this very difficult time. Many charities in our communities share values, such as the importance of community, justice and partnership, and the sense of solidarity that is critical to us moving forward during times of crisis.

I also want to talk about how the government, especially over the last two or more decades, has turned to charities to take over the work that government should be doing. The government should be foremost responsible for the social well-being of all in our country. It is clear that government must be doing its part to ensure the collective good, rather than overly relying on charities to do its work. The reality is that inequality in Canada has increased over the last number of years in significant ways. Instead of the government stepping in to address that shocking inequality and the rise in inequality, it has often turned to philanthropy and the charitable sector to try to fill in the gaps, and that is not okay.

The charitable sector cannot and should not replace the government's social mission. It should have effective tools to be able to accomplish its work. The charitable sector should not be seen as the solution to government programs, particularly government programs targeted at closing the inequality gap in our country. If social justice were fully realized through effective government policies, particularly at the national level, we would not need to rely on charities to do the critical work of feeding people, clothing people and supporting people who are on the margins. Charity is relied on by government and is not a substitute for social justice policy.

As Paul Taylor, a great activist in Toronto fighting back against food insecurity, has said, “The most effective remedy for food insecurity is also the simplest: provide people with income to purchase food”. This shows clearly that the federal government is not doing enough for people. Food banks, for example, are helping so many, not because food is unavailable in many communities, but because poverty is so high in so many places that people cannot afford to get the food they need. We must recognize that food is a right, not a privilege, and beyond food security, social well-being is also a right, not a privilege.

Because of inadequate social assistance rates provided by governments and because our social safety net has been cut and privatized, many more people in Canada in recent decades have been pushed into poverty, forced to choose between dangerous housing conditions and homelessness and between paying basic bills and the groceries they need. As we have seen during the pandemic and now with the rise in inflation and the increased cost of living, the reality is that people are suffering and families are crying out for help.

While charities help and do important work, we cannot rely on them to replace our collective responsibility in government. It is the federal government that should be stepping in to eradicate poverty in our country and close the growing inequality gap here in Canada.

The solution is clear: Give more to those who have less. I urge the government to take responsibility for helping those in greatest need and to help the most vulnerable with direct support. We saw that take place during the pandemic. I am proud of the work that we did in the NDP to push the government to invest in CERB and to expand supports to students, to seniors and to people living with disabilities. Unfortunately, those supports were only temporary. The reality is that Canadians are suffering and need direct income support now.

I want to acknowledge the important work of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has pushed for a guaranteed livable income, and the support of many in this regard. I also want to acknowledge the important work of many in pushing for tax fairness and recognizing that the richest among us in our country are not paying their fair share. The rich and corporations ought to be paying their fair share so that money can be reinvested in the social programs that are necessary to close the growing inequality gap in our country.

Let us turn to the charitable sector as well. It has been clear, in consultations undertaken by the government and the House of Commons, that charities are subjected to outdated, restrictive and onerous rules. Their funds come from donations that are tax-deductible. However, as the rules are now, charities can spend their charitable dollars only on activities that they undertake themselves. In short, a charity must maintain a “direction and control” role in the activities carried out on its behalf and in the use of its resources by the intermediary.

These restrictions were implemented during the 1950s to ensure that these tax deductions were not diverted to other means than the charitable ones, but it is necessary to recognize that the “own activities” requirement is inefficient and unrealistic. Canadian charities must expend significant time and money to provide their direction and control requirements when they deal with what are known as non-qualified donees.

As a result, charities do not have flexibility. They have limited resources to fulfill their missions, and they are restricted in entering partnerships with other non-profits as a result. As a consequence, charities cannot fully focus on the essential mission that they have defined for themselves.

Bill S-216 addresses these shortcomings. It is a step forward in reforming the charitable sector and it should significantly improve the legislative framework for public and social well-being. It would give charities the flexibility they need on how they can enter into partnership to accomplish their charitable purpose.

Bill S-216 would eliminate the “direction and control” requirement, which would allow charities to transfer their resources to non-qualified donees as long as required measures are taken to ensure that these resources will be used only to fulfill a charitable purpose. This includes the collection of information on the identity, experience and activities of third party recipients before providing resources.

We believe that this bill can address the challenges that the charitable sector is facing. I want to acknowledge those who have come forward to support this proactive solution.

Let us be clear: The federal government has failed to meet charitable organizations' needs with what has been proposed in Bill C-19. We believe that Bill S-216 is a step in the right direction. Let us also be clear that the government's work must remain primary, and we must catch up on the gaps we have created that are pushing so many Canadians through the cracks. It is up to the government to act to address inequality and end poverty in our country.

[Chris Lewis]

Thank you very much.

To build off of your testimony, you had mentioned about three million workers in North America who are represented. I do believe it to be true that another 350,000 skilled trades workers will be needed by 2025 in Ontario alone.

In and through Bill C-241, I'm a really big believer that if we're going to build Canada back—if we're going to build our bridges, sewers, electrical systems and the homes that we all agree we desperately need—we have to get skilled trades and get skilled trades moving.

In and through the introduction of Bill C-19, there was an introduction from the government. It's a great start, but it has a cap of $4,000. That $4,000 could equate to a month and a half or two months of travel. Under C-241, my private member's bill, there's no cap because if we are going to have our skilled trades moving to various areas across the country, I believe that they should not have any restrictions. As a business person myself, there are no restrictions as to how many times I can get on an airplane, stay in a hotel or have a meal out of town.

I'm curious, sir. Could you expand on how exactly you think this would perhaps be more beneficial to the legislation than Bill C-19?

[Bruce MacDonald, President and Chief Executive Officer, Imagine Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to bring important considerations to your attention as you discuss the first budget implementation act.

As you are all aware, the charitable and non-profit sector is a vital part of the very fabric of our communities, improving the lives of everyday people here in Canada, and working with others around the world. In addition, this sector contributes to the nation's economic well-being. Charities and non-profit organizations employ one in 10 Canadians, and contribute 8.3% of Canada's GDP.

As a sector that is of significant importance to supporting Canadians, we were encouraged by two recent announcements in budget 2022. These are the changes to the disbursement quota and the stated intent to amend the Income Tax Act to allow a charity to provide its resources to organizations that are not qualified donees. It was stated that this would implement the spirit of Bill S-216. In combination, these measures would infuse the sector with additional financial resources and allow for more of those new resources to support vulnerable and marginalized communities, including working with organizations often serving and led by Black Canadians, indigenous people and persons of colour.

I'm here today to let you know that the proposed language in the budget implementation act has significantly missed the mark and would, in fact, make things worse for charities wanting to work with non-qualified donees. While the intent is clear, the specific language is hugely problematic.

The spirit of Bill S-216 includes a number of critical elements. It is a made-in-Canada policy solution that reflects our international commitments and integrates the latest evidence-based accountability and trust-based philanthropic principles. Unfortunately, the specific language of the BIA instead offers a rigid and ill-suited integration of U.S. tax measure into Canada's ITA.

We continue to encourage the government to support the spirit and substance of Bill S-216, and a wide collective of organizations, including Cooperation Canada, Philanthropic Foundations Canada, Imagine Canada and a group of the nation's leading charity lawyers, all of whom are offering concrete solutions to improve the legislation.

If not amended, Bill C-19 will have a number of harmful effects. Rather than removing the concept of direction and control, the BIA retains the current “own activities” regime, which requires direction and control. The language of the BIA would then codify direction and control through regulations and make it part of the fabric of the new qualifying disbursements regime.

In practice, casting existing CRA administrative guidance into legislation will result in a less flexible approach, and the CRA will require more direction and control-like conditions than before for qualifying disbursements. This will result in fewer types of collaborations, less flexibility in their design, and fewer partnerships with non-qualified donees overall.

The proposed language does not reflect the spirt of Bill S-216, which is trust-based philanthropy on equal footing, but instead perpetuates the current paternalistic regime by embedding a long and overly prescriptive code-like list of requirements that would govern the relationship between funder and grantee. By doing so, the BIA retains the colonial, parent-child nature of the relationship that we were trying to get away from.

The BIA reinforces and, in fact, enhances the administrative burden. Organizations will have to incur legal fees, hire lawyers and control actions to abide by these regulations.

In order to encompass the spirit of Bill S-216, we are pleased to offer three amendments to the language of the BIA for consideration.

In subsection 149.1(1) of the Income Tax Act, we propose to refine the definition of “qualifying disbursement”. Remove the reference to the disbursement meeting prescribed conditions, and replace it with a requirement that the charity instead take reasonable steps to ensure that the resources disbursed are used exclusively in furtherance of a charitable purpose. This would allow for more inclusive partnerships to better support non-qualified donees providing programs while retaining accountability and further charitable purpose.

In clause 21 of the bill, amend the proposed language in paragraph 168(1)(f) of the act related to directed giving. I won't read the full amendment, but will say that the amendment provides a solution to the directed giving issue in the BIA. The problem with the language isn't that charities can't grant to non-qualified donees, it's that they cannot receive gifts for the specific purpose of giving them to non-qualified donees, even if this aligns with their charitable activities.

Delete proposed regulation 3703 in its entirety. This would allow for the regulations to move back into CRA guidance documents, and not exist as codified rules in the Income Tax Act.

The language of the BIA has yet to be finalized. As members of the finance committee, as members of Parliament and as the voices of your communities, you can have an enormous on the final wording, and I urge you to use that influence and to support these amendments. By doing so, you will establish a system that is more respectful, less complex and less costly, and that can adapt to the needs of the future.

Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this particular issue. As I said in my question earlier, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind of the good work done by charities. After discussions with many of my colleagues within the Liberal caucus, and I am sure this is true of MPs on all sides belonging to all political parties, I can share endless examples of the good work and the deeds of charities not only here in Canada but also around the world.

If we were to look at it, what we would find is that Canadians on a per capita basis have to be one of the most generous groups of people in the world. I really believe that. I would like to cite a couple of examples. However, before I do that, I would like to recognize Bill S-216 and thank the senator for the fine work she has done in ensuring that it comes for debate in this chamber.

What we are debating today is in good part being discussed in one of our standing committees. The Prime Minister and the government recognized a while back that we wanted to make some modifications, believing that the charitable legislation in place for Revenue Canada for income tax is a fairly comprehensive system of taxation and the need for modifications in certain areas has been well demonstrated. During the pandemic, the Prime Minister, in particular, and other members of this chamber have talked about what we can learn from the pandemic so we can continue to build a better system. One of the things that has come out of that is the need to look at ways in which we can enable more power to our charitable organizations.

Today, Bill C-19, the budget implementation bill, happens to be in a committee, which provides opposition members and all members, through House leadership teams and their colleagues, the ability to contribute to the debate on how we can make some changes to the legislation that will better enable charities going forward. An opportunity for this has been made available for us because the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance brought forward a budget document through the budget implementation legislation. I would encourage members of all political stripes to contribute. As we have seen in the past, and as we will no doubt continue to see in the future, the government is open to changes and modifications to improve legislation. In fact, I understand some charitable organizations are having that dialogue now to see if there are ways in which we can improve it.

One of the charities I want to highlight concerns Ukraine. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the reaction around the world was fairly profound in the sense that Ukrainian solidarity, if I can put it that way, went well beyond the borders of Ukraine. In fact, Canada's population of Ukrainian heritage is estimated at over 1.3 million people. It captured the imagination of people from coast to coast to coast, even those who are not of Ukrainian heritage, in what we can do as a community here in Canada to support our brothers and sisters in Ukraine, the war heroes in Ukraine. We have organizations, such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress or Canadian Red Cross, which have charitable tax receipts.

Canadians turn to those organizations by the thousands, and they have contributed millions of dollars. Those charitable organizations are providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine. In fact, the federal government matched funds for donations to the Red Cross. I think initially the cap was $10 million for matching donations, which was quickly used up, so we increased the cap to $30 million, and I believe it hit that also.

This demonstrates a couple of things for me, personally, as I know it does for my colleagues. One is that the fine work our charitable organizations is doing, in this case, for Ukrainian people in Ukraine and the bordering countries, where Ukrainians are fleeing for a safe haven, has absolutely been astounding. Arguably, it is second to very few others. That is one of the reasons Canadians have opened their hearts, wallets and purses, and that is done through charitable organizations.

I understand what the debate is today. What about those who want to be able to contribute? Staying on the topic of Ukraine, there is a new organization recently established in Manitoba called Manitoba Operation Blue Skies. My understanding is that it is 80 volunteers who have all come to the table in the last number of weeks, saying they want to participate and help the people who are looking to relocate and possibly come to Canada, at least for the short term and possibly even the long term.

Manitoba Operation Blue Skies does not have a charitable tax number, so it goes to the Canadian Ukrainian Institute Prosvita, an organization that has been there for many years and given a great deal of support in many different ways. Through the co-operation and indirect support of that organization, and there is a high sense of accountability, Prosvita is able to support Manitoba Operation Blue Skies in some of its initiatives. I do not think there is anyone inside this chamber who would not recognize the value of that.

The idea that there are organizations out there, and I use Ukraine as an example, but it is just one example of many, shows that there are a lot of people who want to do good work, whether here in Canada or internationally. They have demonstrated that, both financially and by providing resources.

The Canadian government does have a role to play, and we recognize that role. That is why it was so important that we incorporated the idea we are talking about today in the budget implementation bill, which will pass. With support, both from opposition members and from government members, the budget implementation bill, I believe, will pass.

We will see some changes, and we are going to see changes because members on all sides of this House recognize the true value and contributions made by the charitable organizations that are rooted here in Canada. Those who want to support those organizations want to be able to continue to play a vital, critical role, not only here in Canada, but also throughout the world.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear the thoughts of my colleague on how Bill C-19 ought to be amended to better reflect what has been put forward in Bill S-216 and how important it is to make sure that good work can be done in this sector.

[Dr. D.T. Cochrane, Economist, Canadians for Tax Fairness]

Thank you very much.

Thank you kindly for having Canadians for Tax Fairness comment on this budget implementation bill.

Let me begin by commending the government for acting with the appropriate urgency to create a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. The need for this registry is acknowledged by members of all parties.

Efforts must now be turned to getting the provinces on board so the registry is truly pan-Canadian. To that end, we recommend the government fully fund the endeavour. Further, implementation should move ahead with all willing partners. Any laggards can be later enrolled.

There are several other components of Bill C-19 that C4TF will happily address during the Qs and As, particularly the luxury goods tax, the measures on housing speculation, the home accessibility tax credit and the tax measures for climate action.

However, today I want to address things missing from the bill: the one-time and ongoing surtaxes on the profits of banks and insurance companies, plus an updated general anti-avoidance rule to crack down on tax avoidance. We understand that these measures might require more consultation. However, we are concerned that there is a lack of urgency. Too much time allows for too much influence by well-resourced elites and their agents, leading to weakened, if not ineffective, measures.

During the pandemic, the government provided unprecedented amounts of money to support Canadians and stabilize our financial system. Unfortunately, deficit Chicken Littles are now misleading Canadians by claiming that these supports are responsible for inflation.

The standard inflation story claims that it is from “ too much money chasing too few goods”, but there is a much simpler explanation: Corporations are using their price-making power. This is not to discount significant external forces disrupting global supply chains and causing many costs to rise. However, our research found that the 2021 profit margin of Canada's publicly listed corporations almost doubled to nearly 16% from a prepandemic average of less than 9%. This strongly suggests that corporations are doing more than just passing along higher costs.

We have a trickle-up economy. That means some of the public money added to the economy inevitably found its way into corporate coffers. With corporations also boosting their profit margins, an ever-larger flow of public money ended up under corporate control. This overwhelmingly benefits the elite owners.

C4TF welcomes the surtaxes on banks and insurance companies; however, they are too narrow in application, set too high a threshold and are too low. While finance companies have seen the largest jump in profit margins—going from 14% to 22%— extraordinary profits are seen across many sectors. There is no good reason to limit the one-time tax to incomes above one billion dollars or the ongoing rate increase to incomes above $100 million. Also, a one-time extra 15% and the ongoing additional 1.5% are timidly low.

Successive governments have been cutting the corporate income tax rates for decades. From almost 40% in the 1980s, the current rate is a meagre 15%. We were promised that the cuts would result in more productive investment. In fact, investment out of corporate profits is lower now than it was in the 1980s.

Of course, corporations don't actually pay taxes at the statutory rate. In 2021, even while they were making record high profits, corporations were pushing their effective tax rates to record lows. They create and exploit loopholes to lower their taxes. We were pleased to see that budget 2022 included plans to close some of these loopholes.

We also welcomed more concrete steps towards strengthening the general anti-avoidance rule, also known as GAAR, which will empower the Canada Revenue Agency to crack down more forcefully on creative corporate accounting, but this process needs to be given greater urgency. Currently, the deck is heavily stacked against the CRA and its efforts to deal with tax avoidance by the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals.

Recent decisions by the Supreme Court against the CRA highlight the fact that the agency is working with one hand tied behind its back. We need an updated GAAR ASAP.

When the pandemic struck, it was widely accepted that we needed our public institutions to support Canadians. Corporations and their owners have nonetheless profited handsomely.

The need for robust investment in public programs only grows. A stronger excess profits tax, a higher corporate income tax rate and stronger GAR can reduce the excessive benefit going to corporations and help to create a more just, equitable country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone and please mute it when you are not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I would now like to welcome today's witnesses. Please note that today's witnesses are here to speak about part 5 of the BIA.

I will welcome today's witnesses. As an individual, we have James Hinton, intellectual property and innovation expert from Own Innovation. From Canada's Building Trades Unions, we have Sean Strickland, executive director, and Rita Rahmati, government relations specialist. From Canadians for Tax Fairness, we have D.T. Cochrane, economist. From Cider Canada, we have Barry Rooke, executive director, and from Imagine Canada, we have Bruce MacDonald, president and chief executive officer.

We'll now begin with Mr. Hinton from Own Innovation for his opening remarks of up to five minutes, please.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for their interesting testimony.

Ms. Quaid, I'm going to continue with you and ask you my question more broadly.

Competition Bureau Canada has reached a decision on the merger between Shaw and Rogers. I listen to the automotive industry people on the matter of data properties. All the web giants in the world are accumulating data on us, and so on.

My question is very broad, but I'm going to give you all my speaking time to answer it.

Is Canada lagging behind other countries? If so, in what circumstances should we expedite changes to the legislation in order to catch up on this whole digital transformation issue?

Data will obviously become the new gold. In fact, we said it earlier: it's the new gold today, as it were.

What's your overall view on the issue?

You discussed Bill C‑19 and division 15 of part 5 of the budget bill. What should Canada's priorities be right now?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to Ms. Quaid's comments. As you know, the Standing Committee on Finance has proposed that our committee consider divisions 15, 16 and 17 of part 5 of Bill C‑19. As we say in the House, upon verification with all the parties, I think you will find unanimous consent once again so that we may indeed reflect on the matter put before us.

Consequently, Ms. Quaid, you may be receiving an invitation, worded in the manner we choose, to appear and expand on those points. I believe our committee has a responsibility to consider them, at the invitation of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Mr. Chair, do you wish to handle this or would you prefer that I ask my questions?

[Dr. Jennifer Quaid, Associate Professor and Vice-Dean Research, Civil Law Section, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

My name is Jennifer Quaid, and I am an associate professor and vice-dean for research in the Civil Law Section of the University of Ottawa. My fields of expertise are corporate criminal law, competition law, anti-corruption law, business law and general criminal law.

I am very pleased to be appearing before you today to discuss competition law as it relates to SMEs.

I will begin by briefly providing some general competition law background. I'll be switching between English and French during my remarks. I hope that isn't a problem for anyone.

I would like to focus my remarks on the ways in which competition law and policy relate to SMEs. In doing so, I will discuss the current amendments that have been put forth in the first budget implementation act and how these may affect SMEs. I will also touch on the importance of broader reform to competition law and policy and the importance of integrating competition policy into a larger, transversal approach to economic policy.

Competition policy is a part of economic policy and as such should operate in tandem with other policies across departments and agencies in the service of Canadian society as a whole. At present, competition policy, particularly the specific framework of rules that form the body of competition law, the act and its legal interpretations, has developed largely as a distinct field. It has tended to have a small footprint, erring on the side of lesser intervention rather than greater. It is built on a foundation of neoclassical economics, which assumes that in general market capitalism should be left to operate with as little intervention as possible. I am generalizing here. Where an intervention is required, it should be as minimal as possible, to address the worst of anti-competitive effects that could have been or might be caused.

There are a couple of things that characterize competition law that are germane to the work of this committee.

First, the purpose of the act is not competition for competition's sake. The guiding principle is that competition is the best way to generate certain desirable benefits in society. These desirable benefits are identified in section 1.1 of the act. Other experts who have appeared before you have spoken about these benefits. There are four of them: promoting the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy, expanding opportunities for Canadian participation in world markets while at the same time recognizing the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, ensuring an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy, and providing consumers with competitive prices and products.

There is much debate about the purpose clause and which goals are or are not identified in it. At this critical juncture in the digital transformation of society, the time is right to take a hard look at the purpose clause. Is it, as some have argued, an arbitrary and unworkable collection of aspirations that are largely incompatible? Does it identify too few goals? If so, what other goals should it expressly include? Would it be better to create a single statement oriented to the public interest or, as others have argued, should we just fall back on economic efficiency?

I won't go over what other experts have talked about in terms of the debate over the purpose clause, but I think it's very important to consider the context of SMEs in the larger discussion about competition policy.

The second point that's germane to SMEs in particular is that the Competition Act is a law of general application. This is typical of the drafting style we use in Canada. It is also characteristic of legislation that applies to business entities. However, the practice of using general rules tends to obscure important structural differences and economic realities of SMEs versus larger business entities. The sheer range and variation in models of business organization mean that rules intended to apply equally, because they are the same for everyone, in fact produce profoundly different effects.

I would be happy to expand on this in the question and answer period, in particular in relation to the proposed amendments to Bill C-19.

There is a third crucial point, and it relates to the previous one. The digital transformation is having significant impacts on business practices, business models and corporate growth and innovation strategies.

However, SMEs are experiencing the digital transformation in a different way than large businesses. Without meaning to overgeneralize, it is important to acknowledge that, as in situations of asymmetrical power between consumers and businesses, there is also an imbalance between SMEs and global-scale businesses, particularly those that control online platforms and develop information technologies that are necessary to access e‑commerce and digital markets.

The concentration of power in the hands of a small number of private actors, together with significant deficiencies in the framework governing the various aspects of the economy and society that we characterize as digital—a framework that embraces privacy law, data protection law, interoperability issues, the use of artificial intelligence in a growing number of fields and the impact of social media—create a situation in which access to economic participation may be restricted or subject to conditions that are onerous and even exclusionary for SMEs.

I would like to comment briefly on Bill C‑19. I will do so as quickly as possible, but I'll be happy to address these issues in greater detail if you wish to know more about them.

It is important that you pay particular attention to the amendments being proposed, even though the budget process is quickly moving ahead. These proposals, which could well be adopted without change, will have a major impact on SMEs.

To put it bluntly, there can be no doubt that the proposed amendments to the Competition Act would effect substantive changes. They may be appearing in a budget bill, but they are set forth with the clear aim of starting a reform of business law.

According to the government's statements, division 15 of part 5 of the budget bill is only the first draft of a two-part reform. Division 15 constitutes the preliminary phase. The second phase, for which we do not know the timeline, will be preceded by a public consultation designed to survey every party interested in the role of competition policy in the 21st century, particularly with regard to the digital transformation of the economy and our society.

Of course, I have much more to say on these matters, but I'll stop here with regard to this part. However, I would like to provide a brief enumeration of the amendments proposed in this bill.

Eight changes are here proposed. Four of them are widely expected, since Minister Champagne and Commissioner Boswell have expressly referred to them in public statements in recent months.

The amendments are as follows: the addition of a provision creating an employment-related conspiracy offence; an amendment of the maximum amount of certain fines and administrative monetary penalties; the addition of a clause providing that the use of drip pricing constitutes a false and misleading representation that could result in criminal or civil prosecution; and the creation of a right of private access to the Competition Tribunal to remedy an abuse of dominance.

However, there are four more amendments. Although they are not entirely surprising, we didn't necessarily expect to see them immediately in a budget bill. They are as follows: amendments to sections 78 and 79 respecting abuse of dominance, particularly what constitutes conduct that may result in a proceeding instituted by the Commissioner; the addition of factors to be considered in determining the prevention or appreciable reduction of competition simultaneously affecting the provisions on abuse of dominance, amalgamation and civil collaboration; the addition of a general anti-avoidance provision in the notice of amalgamation process, which may be of less interest to the committee; and amendments to the power to order production of documents under section 11.

According to the government, there is a consensus on most of the proposed amendments, at least among those who have publicly stated an opinion, particularly as part of the consultation that was conducted by Senator Wetston, in which I took part.

This allusion to consensus suggests that the inclusion of these changes in the budget bill should not be of great concern, as few will disagree with them.

I could not disagree more.

While the Competition Act is in need of reform—and urgently—for reasons related to SMEs as well as the economy in general, the budget bill process is unlikely to be conducive to a thoughtful reform, even on those issues that some may consider low-hanging fruit. It is important to modernize the act, but if we do it poorly, without consideration of the bigger picture as well as the technical nuances, we risk simply changing the law without making competition policy any better.

I have two more points, and then I'm finished.

I just want to highlight that there are two modifications in this law that concern me greatly. The first is the creation of the wage-fixing offence. I'm happy to go into detail about why I think it's highly problematic, especially for SMEs. The second is the matter of the penalties that have been modified and the use of scalable penalties but in a very limited fashion. Here, I think there was an opportunity lost to make the act more aware of the differences between sizes in enterprises.

I will close by reiterating the importance of competition policy reform and that we need to do it well. This requires consultation from a plurality of stakeholders, notably owners of small and medium-sized businesses and all the people who are affected by this sector or who participate in this sector of the economy. We need to identify what values matter to us and what principles matter to us. Then we can decide how to change our competition policy. Half measures are simply not going to do it.

Thank you. I remain at your disposal for questions.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Following the point of order raised by the member for Joliette, I would like to provide clarification concerning Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

The member noted that the paper copy of the bill obtained in the lobby differed from the version found on the parliamentary web site. It would seem that there are some pages missing. Consequently, he asked which version is the correct one. He asked the Chair for clarification concerning the rules.

The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel was consulted, and I would like to assure members that the first reading copy that was signed by the minister and the Clerk contains all the clauses of the bill.

The problem seems to be with the reproduction of the advance copies available in the lobbies. The Speaker notes that these copies are provided by the government so that members can read the key provisions of the bill. After first reading, the bill is published officially, which might change the pagination and line numbers of the version used for the purposes of the House of Commons.

The copy placed in the lobby is therefore not the official version published under the authority of the Speaker. The version available on the LEGISinfo website is verified by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel before it is put online.

Different Versions of Bill C‑19

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words in support of the point of order raised by the member for Joliette. I think he is right.

If it is true that there are differences between the copies of Bill C‑19, then there is a major problem in terms of respect for this institution. On behalf of the Green Party, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will make a wise and fair ruling.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I want to thank the hon. member for bringing to your attention exactly what happened.

We, as Conservatives, experienced the same situation. The information that was received by us in the lobby was not complete, so it would obviously call into question whether we received the accurate information.

As the hon. member said, it is a 440-page omnibus bill, despite the fact that the government said it would never introduce an omnibus bill. We have and share the exact same concerns, not the least of which is its contents, whether in fact we have received the proper contents and whether we are able to disseminate those contents in our work at committee and in the House as well.

I will speak to the broader issue, which is that this is a pattern on the government side of not having the ability, for some reason, to manage providing this type of information in an appropriate way to the opposition.

I would add as well that, in spite of the information we received, which we deem as incomplete, and as the hon. member argued, we were only allowed five hours of debate in this place on Bill C-19, which amounted to a total of 11 speakers. Obviously, the privileges of the members in the House are paramount and we should be receiving exactly identical information, particularly on an important piece of legislation such as the budget implementation act, which is 440 pages. Several of those pages were missing from what the opposition parties received, and it was therefore incomplete.

I ask that you look at this judiciously, and come back with what I would expect to be a favourable ruling on the hon. member's point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 28, the government introduced Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, at first reading. Although the bill passed at second reading under time allocation on May 10, the printed version of the bill presented in the House and received in the lobby differs from the one on the House of Commons' LEGISinfo site.

Members may therefore have received two different versions of Bill C‑19. The paper version contains 477 clauses on 421 pages and actually ends abruptly under the heading “Commission” at paragraph 68.2(b).

The virtual document contains 502 clauses on 440 pages and includes three schedules. That means pages 422 to 440, which include clauses 477 to 502, are missing. Either the wrong version was provided to opposition members when the bill was introduced in the House, or the wrong version is being provided to members and the public on LEGISinfo. I believe the correct version is on LEGISinfo, but I would like confirmation from the government on that.

The paper version clearly states that it is an advance copy that must be formatted and reprinted by Parliament, but still, it is missing roughly 20 clauses and 20 pages. We are talking about an omnibus bill of over 400 pages. We are accustomed to using the copies provided by the government, clearly for environmental reasons, but also because we have, and we want to maintain, confidence in the consistency of the documents tabled and printed in the House.

The opposition parties must simply trust the government on a number of occasions, including when bills are introduced, when budgets are tabled and when the business of supply is being considered. It is therefore important for us to check the content of the bill and ensure that there are no hidden surprises between the hard copy provided to the opposition and the one found on the House website.

When a government bill is tabled, it is customary for the government to publish the contents of the bill immediately after tabling it. However, if the paper version the opposition receives is incomplete, how can we comment on the bill? Could the government manipulate the information provided to the media? Which version of the bill should we now use for the committee study?

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at page 728: “In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced.”

Are we at that point? I do not think so, but there has been a real mix-up involving the hard copies provided to the opposition and the printing of the bill.

On April 22, when the bill was tabled for first reading, the Deputy Speaker clearly stated, as is customary in the House, “Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed”. I ask that the Speaker provide clear rules for ensuring that the printed copy provided to the opposition is complete when the bill is introduced in the House, given that this has a direct impact on our ability to answer questions from reporters.