EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Finance NUMBER 045 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Monday, June 8, 2026 Le lundi 8 juin 2026 Standing Committee on Finance CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE June 8, 2026 Committee NUMBER 045 NUMBER 045 NUMÉRO 045 45 08 06 2026 2026/06/08 16:20:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des finances Standing Committee on Finance FINA Chair Karina Gould 1 45

(1620) [ English ]

The Chair (Hon. Karina Gould (Burlington, Lib.)) :

Good afternoon, colleagues. I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 45 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 26, 2026, and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, May 7, 2026, the committee will resume consideration of Bill C-30 ,

an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026. [ Translation ] I would like to say a few words to the members of the committee on how committees proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerks. [ English ] In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments.

Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required, if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. [ Translation ] I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑30 . [ English ] I would like to welcome our witnesses, who are available to answer technical questions related to the bill.

I'm not going to go through them by name, as members will have received that list. Most of them are sitting in the back, and there might be a couple of them who are online, if members have questions for them. With that, we will begin clause-by-clause. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the

short title, is postponed. (On clause 2)

The Chair: We will begin with clause 2, and we have CPC-1. Who is moving CPC-1?

Jasraj Hallan (Calgary East, CPC) :

I'll move it. Should I just read it?

The Chair :

Yes, please.

Jasraj Hallan :

I move that Bill C-30 , in clause 2, be amended by adding, after line 2 on page 2, the following:

(4) Within six months after the day on which this

section comes into force, the Minister of Labour in collaboration with the Minister of Finance must table a report in each House of Parliament, on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the report is made, that includes:

(

a) the expected number of tradespeople eligible for the labour mobility deduction as amended under this section;

(

b) the average benefit received by eligible tradespeople under the modified labour mobility deduction; and

(

c) the regional distribution of claims made under the modified labour mobility deduction.

The reasoning behind this is that we'd like to get a bit more transparency and clarity to see how much people from each region are getting. In the future, if this program is something to keep, then we'll know the regional distribution. Otherwise, if it's something that isn't working out, then there's more clarity on how much money went out and why it's not working out. I think it's a good way for us to show transparency for this program. That's why we're moving this amendment forward. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, Lib.) :

Madam Chair, the government opposes this amendment. It would require the government to report information that will not likely be available within the mandated timelines. Further, it would require the publication of a report with some information that is already published annually in the report on federal tax expenditures. This report is customarily tabled in the House of Commons, along with the main estimates. Furthermore, Bill C-30 would amend the Income Tax Act to modify the labour mobility deduction as of the 2026 tax year and, thus, will first be reflected on tax returns filed in spring 2027.

The Department of Finance would not have access to this data until late 2027, at the earliest. As with some other Conservative amendments, we feel that the mandated timelines this specifies cannot be reasonably met and, in some cases, are duplicative to other reports that are already tabled in the House. Thank you.

The Chair :

Mr. Kelly, would you like to add something?

Pat Kelly (Calgary Crowfoot, CPC) :

Sure. I don't know if you have a list or if anybody else would like to add to this as well. We have officials here. I wonder if we can have the officials comment. I mean, Mr. Turnbull has said that he doesn't believe this amendment would be possible. I'd like officials to comment on this and find out what the obstacle to—

The Chair :

Officials are coming to the table. Mr. Turnbull.

Ryan Turnbull :

On a point of order, Madam Chair, for the record, I didn't say it was not possible. I made an argument as to why it was unnecessary. Those are two very different things.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Officials, can you please state your names before you answer questions? That's just for the interpreters.

Mark Maxson (Senior Director, Employment and Education, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Mark Maxson. I'm a director of employment and education in the personal income tax division at the Department of Finance. With respect to feasibility, for the specific first amendment in respect of the labour mobility deduction, I can say that it does require that within six months after the day on which the

section comes into force, a report be tabled with information on claims of the deduction as modified by this bill. Claims based on this modified version of the deduction will be made next spring, by April 30, 2027. Typically, the Department of Finance will not receive that information from the Canada Revenue Agency until mid-summer at the earliest. We get very preliminary information. It's really not complete and reliable information until late 2027. I can't speak to exactly when this bill will receive royal assent and when the

section comes into force, but there's a high likelihood that the data requested would not be available within six months of that date.

(1625) The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Hallan.

Jasraj Hallan :

This is a question for the officials. From what you're saying, it seems that the only issue is the first 15 days. Am I right in saying that?

Mark Maxson :

There is a requirement that it be tabled “within six months” of the coming into force of the section. Then, I believe, within 15 days of making the report, it's to be tabled in the House. The six-month window, I think, is where the time limitation is.

Jasraj Hallan :

If you were to suggest a subamendment for this, what would it be?

Mark Maxson :

I don't believe it's my place to suggest a subamendment, but the data would be available to the Department of Finance toward the end of 2027. Some parts of it will also be published in the annual report on federal tax expenditures that's tabled each spring.

The Chair :

Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Clarke, CPC) :

I'm sorry. I just want to follow up on that from my colleagues, because I didn't quite catch this. If we changed it from six months to a year, would the information in all likelihood be ready?

Mark Maxson :

I don't know when the clock starts ticking. It depends on when the

section comes into force. What I can say is that the information would be available at the Department of Finance by the end of 2027.

Philip Lawrence :

If it got passed today, in order for us to be confident that the information would be available, we'd have to make it a year and a half. Am I making sense, based on those assumptions?

Mark Maxson :

That sounds about right.

Philip Lawrence :

I have a secondary question. You said that some of this information is available in a document on tax expenditures. Would it include the number of tradespeople who are eligible for the labour mobility deduction? That's something that would be important to us.

Mark Maxson :

The report published annually includes the number of claimants and the total tax expenditure—the total cost, if you will, or the total benefit to that number of claimants.

Philip Lawrence :

We could obviously just do the math on that. That would give you the average benefit. What about the regional distribution of the claims? Is that information included?

Mark Maxson :

That information is not typically included in the report on tax expenditures, no.

Philip Lawrence :

Okay.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Hallan.

Jasraj Hallan :

Mr. Lawrence asked the last part. I don't know if we can make a subamendment or make an amendment to this at all. Maybe we can just delete the top part and get (a), (

b) and (

c) added to the end report. I don't know if that's possible.

The Chair :

Do you have a subamendment that you're proposing?

Jasraj Hallan :

I would propose that we could remove the first part.

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Mr. Hallan. You're not allowed to subamend your own amendment.

Jasraj Hallan :

Okay. I guess someone else can.

The Chair :

We have Monsieur Garon on the list, so we'll go to him first.

[ Translation ]

Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ) :

If we want to move forward, and I assume everyone does, the report has to be tabled. Let's not waste time trying to figure out exactly when the department receives a particular piece of information. If there is a willingness on the government's part and if the availability of the data is the only stumbling block—which could actually be a subterfuge to reject the amendment—we could just say something to the effect of “that the report be tabled within 30 or 60 days of the data being received”.

The Chair :

Do you have a specific subamendment to propose?

Jean-Denis Garon :

Perhaps we should find out whether there's any interest among committee members in doing that, before we waste time debating it. Yes, I propose that subamendment. Here's what is happening. The government says it's about the time frame, the number of days. It's hard to predict. We are proposing something that is risk-free, and the government doesn't want to support it. If we spend all night here, Madam Chair, the government's stubbornness will be why. We won't propose it, because the government won't agree to it. The Liberals have the majority, and they are arrogant.

(1630) The Chair :

Are you proposing a subamendment or not, Mr. Garon?

Jean-Denis Garon :

Yes. It reads as follows: “within 30 days after the day on which the government receives the data”.

The Chair :

The subamendment has to be in writing.

Jean-Denis Garon :

Can you give us a few minutes?

The Chair :

Yes, I'll suspend for two minutes so you can draft the subamendment and distribute it to the committee.

(1630) (1630)

[ English ]

The Chair :

We're resuming the meeting. While we're waiting for that subamendment, I just want to see if the committee will provide unanimous consent to stand clause 2 until the end of the meeting. We can come back to it to review it at that point. It's just that we have to send the subamendment for translation. Is there unanimous consent for that? Mr. Kelly.

Pat Kelly :

I will consent to that, but there is a principle here that's important. This is a bilingual committee. When members speak in the language of their choice, including to amend something, I don't believe it is a requirement that it come back in order to be circulated in writing. There is simultaneous translation, so an amendment can be—

The Chair :

No, there is a requirement. It's in the Standing Orders. That's why, while we're waiting for that—

Pat Kelly :

The standing order is that when you table something in writing, you can't distribute it without—

The Chair :

No, we still...and I think that's still fair for everyone.

Pat Kelly :

That's fair enough. I consent to leaving this to the end. (Clause 2 allowed to stand) (On clause 3)

The Chair :

We'll move along to clause 3. Is there someone for CPC-2?

(1635) Pat Kelly :

I would be pleased to move CPC-2.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.

Pat Kelly :

I move that Bill C-30 , in clause 3, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 2 the following:

(2) Without delay after the day on which this

section comes into force and every year after that, the Minister of National Revenue in collaboration with the Minister of Finance must publish a report in respect of the previous year on the number of qualifying business transfers that have resulted in a capital gains deduction.

This is a reporting requirement that we are adding to ensure transparency and accountability. Canadians want to know the efficacy of the policies that are brought about, and we need to judge the success or non-success of measures. Small businesses and local jobs are extremely important. We need to know that retiring small business owners and employees are being supported, and we need to have accurate data to inform policy-makers, no matter who is in government. That's the rationale for this; it's to ensure that we know what the results of this policy are.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

Ryan Turnbull :

The government opposes this amendment. It would require that the government report information that is not currently collected for statistical analysis purposes by the CRA. Furthermore, related information on the number of individuals claiming a capital gains deduction for either a qualifying business transfer or a qualifying co-operative conversion will be included in future publications of the report on federal tax expenditures. This report is customarily tabled in the House of Commons along with the main estimates. It's for similar reasons to the last amendment.

It's duplicative and it's not statistical information that the CRA regularly collects. For those two reasons, we're opposed. Thank you.

The Chair :

Monsieur Lefebvre, go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Eric Lefebvre (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC) :

The government is putting measures in place, and it's important to be able to quantify them, to have a dashboard that shows whether or not they're working. We then need to assess them and decide whether to keep them or not. What we are proposing is important. I don't understand why the government doesn't want to support this amendment.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Shall CPC-2 carry? Mr. Turnbull, you have your hand up.

Ryan Turnbull :

That sounded like a question to the government. I gave some rationale as to why we would oppose it. It doesn't seem to merit the.... There is information that's collected and tabled already in the House of Commons that pertains to this. There would be an additional reporting burden put on the CRA for the statistical analysis that's being required here, and we don't think it's necessary.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Mr. Hallan, go ahead.

Jasraj Hallan :

The government's making a claim that it's a burden to the CRA. I was wondering if the officials could tell us if it's possible to do this. I don't know how much more work it would take, but could the officials could tell us that? If it's something that could be included, then I think it should be.

The Chair :

Mr. Walsh, are you able to answer that question?

Mark Walsh (Senior Director, Savings and Investment, Department of Finance) :

Thank you very much for your question. My name is Mark Walsh. I am senior director of savings and investment in the personal income tax division of Finance Canada. With respect to the question in terms of what the CRA is currently capable of obtaining, right now the information that they do obtain or would obtain is in respect of the number of claimants for a qualifying business transfer, but not the number of transfers. That information is not currently obtainable in a way that would be conducive to statistical analysis.

Jasraj Hallan :

Just to follow up, based on the amendment, would it be possible for the department to do this?

Mark Walsh :

I don't think it's my position to answer that question.

Jasraj Hallan :

It's weird that....

(1640) Philip Lawrence :

I'm sorry, Mr. Walsh. I didn't quite understand the distinction. You said that CRA gathers the number of claimants but not the number of transfers. Is the difference because a claimant could have multiple transfers? Every transfer, I would assume, would result in at least one claimant. If you could clarify, that would be great.

Mark Walsh :

It's sort of the other way. A qualifying transaction might have multiple claimants. When the claimant reports the information, there might be other claimants making a claim in respect of the same qualifying transaction.

Philip Lawrence :

If you just had the total number of claimants, you perhaps would be overstating the number of transfers because there would be multiple parties for many of the transfers. Is that the worry?

Mark Walsh :

That's fair, yes.

The Chair :

Shall CPC-2 carry? (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5) (Clause 3 agreed to on division) (On clause 4)

The Chair: Next, we have clause 4 and CPC-3. Mr. Hallan, go ahead.

Jasraj Hallan :

I move that Bill C-30 , in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 2 the following:

(2) Without delay after the day on which this

section comes into force and every year after that, the Minister of National Revenue in collaboration with the Minister of Finance must publish a report in respect of the previous year on the use of the deduction for qualifying cooperative conversions.”

Once again, this would bring about more clarity, more transparency and of, course, more accountability. At the end of the day, the more data we have, based on this.... This is good for the future. We're bringing forward most of these amendments because of the fact that the more data we have, the more we know whether something is actually working or not. The government introduces a lot of things, but then doesn't really have tracking measurements to see if they're successful or not. This would help that and determine whether the program is a success or not. That's why we're bringing this one forward.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Hallan. Mr. Turnbull.

Ryan Turnbull :

I'll share that the government's position is to oppose this for exactly the same reasons that I indicated for the previous amendment. The information being asked for here, which would be required if this passes, is not currently being collected for statistical analysis through the CRA. It's also slightly duplicative because some of the information being requested would be in future publications of the report on federal tax expenditures, which is customarily tabled in the House of Commons with the main estimates.

This will be a running theme, by the way, because many of the amendments the Conservatives have proposed seem to want to increase red tape, government operations and reporting requirements, which is the opposite of what they often say. I will say there are quite a number of them that don't seem to merit the added cost. If we were to do a cost-benefit analysis, we don't feel that some of these would garner the benefit that would be required to justify adding additional resources. Thanks.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. [ Translation ] Go ahead, Mr. Lefebvre.

Eric Lefebvre :

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is about transparency, and that's what the public wants right now. That's what Canadians are concerned about right now. They feel there isn't any transparency. The government is just throwing things at us, like the issue I raised in recent weeks. As far as the data are concerned, the government is saying that the information isn't currently collected, but that is precisely why we are proposing this now. We want a dashboard; we want to know whether this is working or not. How can you assess a program when you don't have any data? This is essential.

That's what you do in the private sector. If you want to know whether your product or service is working, you collect and analyze the data. Then you're able to decide whether to keep doing what you're doing. We should do the same thing on our end. I don't understand why the government keeps refusing to collect the data required to properly assess these measures.

(1645) [ English ]

The Chair :

I'm sorry. Are both of you raising your hands?

Pat Kelly :

I think he had his hand up first. I just want to make sure that I'm on the list.

The Chair :

Okay. We'll have Mr. Lawrence and then Mr. Kelly. Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence :

I was wondering if we could have the officials up. I have a couple of questions. Is that you, Mr. Walsh? Perfect. It's Mr. Turnbull's position that some of this information is already provided. Could you explain to me what information is already provided and, if any, what information could be made available by virtue of this amendment that's not currently available in, I'm guessing, the same tax expenditures publication?

Mark Walsh :

The tax expenditures report would include information on the number of claimants, but not the number of actual conversions. It's the same issue with respect to the qualifying business transfer. The issue, again, is that multiple capital gains deductions may be made with respect to a single qualifying co-operative conversion, meaning that the information on the number of co-operative conversions is currently not obtainable, based on the information the CRA collects.

Philip Lawrence :

If I could, again, Chair...? I understand and I hear you. You have the number of claimants but you don't necessarily have the number of conversions. Could you provide us with—even just in broad strokes—what the cost would be, either in finances or in man-hours? You have the information, but you need to distill it down. First of all, would you agree with my premise that you have the information and that it's just a matter of repackaging that information?

Mark Walsh :

In terms of the resources that would be required, I'm not in a position here to say how many resources would be required to obtain this information in a way that would be conducive to the statistical analysis required to provide the information in the amendment.

Philip Lawrence :

The first part of my question—and I apologize that it wasn't that clear—was this: Do agree with my assertion that the CRA has the information necessary to fulfill the requirement in this amendment, but you don't currently put it together, for lack of a better term?

Mark Walsh :

I wouldn't want to speak to what extent the CRA has this information. I think that's more of a question for the CRA to answer. What I know is that I am not in a position to be able to say what information can be provided.

Philip Lawrence :

That's fair. Do we have the CRA here, Madam Chair?

The Chair :

No.

Philip Lawrence :

Well, it's a shame. Who decides which experts were put forward?

The Chair :

We send it to the Department of Finance, and they coordinated the officials.

Philip Lawrence :

Mr. Walsh, were you part of the team that decided not to invite the CRA? Who would have done that?

(1650) The Chair :

That's beyond Mr. Walsh's.... It would be the Department of Finance.

Philip Lawrence :

Could we have the Department of Finance up here, please?

The Chair :

He is here for the Department of Finance.

Philip Lawrence :

Okay. Well then, I'm going to ask the Department of Finance because they're the ones who decided, Chair. Why is the CRA not here?

The Chair :

In fairness, Mr. Lawrence, I don't think Mr. Walsh can answer that question because he's not necessarily the person who made the decision as to which individuals were coming.

Philip Lawrence :

Well then, who is?

The Chair :

I don't believe they are here, Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence :

I'm left without getting an answer because the appropriate person was not asked for from the finance department, but the finance department won't answer why they didn't ask the appropriate person to be here. Does this make sense?

The Chair :

Mr. Lawrence, we have a wide range of officials here, and unfortunately—

Philip Lawrence :

We have a question regarding the Income Tax Act, yet we don't have the CRA here...?

The Chair :

You have the list of officials in front of you, Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence :

Does it make sense that the Department of Finance would not call the CRA with respect to amendments to the Income Tax Act?

The Chair :

You're welcome to keep posing the question. I don't think any of us here have the answer for you.

Philip Lawrence :

To me, it's troublesome that we haven't invited.... We're supposed to have a full suite of individuals here to answer the questions. I am no one, but I do represent 100,000 people in Northumberland—Clarke, and their government, which they pay for, should be there to answer questions when there are questions. Maybe Mr. Walsh could take it back to the Department of Finance so that when the government is reviewing a proposal to amend the Income Tax Act, we have at least one official here from the CRA. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Kelly, go ahead.

Pat Kelly :

Thanks. I'm a little disappointed too that we don't have a CRA witness here when, for so many amendments, we're being told that it is the CRA's methods, the way they collect data and the way they interact with the Department of Finance that are the reasons why the the government is opposing these amendments. Mr. Turnbull said that this is additional “red tape”, as he called it, which Conservatives oppose. It's certainly true that Conservatives oppose red tape, meaning regulations that harm businesses and drag on the economy. What we do support is transparency from the government.

That's why we've moved a series of amendments that address transparency, because when a government makes everything about the announcement and when announcements are made with such fervent assertion about how a bill is going to affect policy and have outcomes, it's important to have the follow-up. I was on the public accounts committee for several years, and the Auditor General repeatedly called out the government for its lack of data, so we're asking for the publication of data so that the stated efficacy of the policy that the government announces can be measured. That's why I support Mr.

Hallan's amendment to require reporting. The CRA is the largest department in the public service. I don't know what its current full-time equivalent count is. The last I knew, it was 57,000 full-time equivalents. It might be a little under that now. For a department that large, to be told that we can't get the information is disappointing. I support this amendment, and I'll vote for it.

The Chair :

Mr. Lawrence is next.

Philip Lawrence :

I would request unanimous consent to request CRA's presence at all future meetings.

The Chair :

Do we have unanimous consent for that?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: We do not. Shall CPC-3 carry? (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5) (Clause 4 agreed to on division) (Clause 5 agreed to on division) (On clause 6)

The Chair: We are on CPC-4. Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.

(1655) Pat Kelly :

Thank you. The fourth Conservative amendment is that Bill C-30 , in clause 6, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 3 the following:

(3) Without delay after the day on which this

section comes into force and every year after that, the Minister of National Revenue in collaboration with the Minister of Finance must, for the duration of the extended repayment grace period under the Home Buyers’ Plan, publish a report on the number of Canadians affected by the Home Buyers’ Plan repayment grace period extension and on the estimated fiscal cost of that extension.

Once again, this is an amendment that would give parliamentarians and Canadians better information about the effectiveness of the extension of the grace period under the homebuyers' plan. The original long-standing homebuyers' plan, through which Canadians could use part of their RRSP for a down payment, is something I'm very familiar with. In my days in the mortgage industry, I brokered hundreds of transactions involving that program. When they make changes to a policy, we need to know what the actual results are.

Some around this table will recall that prior to the 2019 election, there was a change to mortgage policy with the shared equity program the Liberals brought in. They announced it as the most transformational thing to hit the mortgage industry in decades. They campaigned on it. They implemented it. As predicted by people in the industry and parliamentarians, it was an absolute dud. Almost nobody in Canada took them up on it. It was very quietly abandoned several years later. Again, you come back to “government by announcement”.

You'd think, from the announcement, the Liberals had solved the housing crisis through a mortgage rule change, but it was literally a nothingburger covered in nothing sauce. When they make changes or tweaks to a program, we need to be able to follow up on them and hold the government to account for the programs it implements with real data and actual information about the uptake of the things they announce. I encourage all members of the committee to embrace accountability and transparency on behalf of the government and, simply, good data for good public policy.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Turnbull.

Ryan Turnbull :

I'm going to outline a couple of reasons why the government opposes this amendment as well. Basically, if I were to summarize it, the timeline doesn't work. Also, what Mr. Kelly said is not true. We did not say this solves the housing crisis. The grace period for RRSP homebuyers' plan withdrawals is being extended from two years to five years for participants making a first withdrawal between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2028. That's good news for individuals who have made those withdrawals or will make them within that time period. This extends the repayment period.

The government has been very clear about the cost of this fiscal measure. It's estimated to be $42 million over the period from 2028-29 to 2030-31. Within that two-year period, it's going to cost $42 million. The Conservatives have the information they're looking for. Granted, it's an estimate for the cost of that measure. Basically, the information will not be available in the timeline that's set out in the amendment. For that reason, we oppose it.

(1700) Pat Kelly :

Again, for added clarity, I had not suggested that the government announced this particular measure as a catch-all solution to the housing crisis. I referred to the since-abandoned program in 2019. I make the contrast here. The important reason that's relevant is that, in that case, they just abandoned it after such a strong and forceful announcement on it, and the point is that we need to be able to track where this government lands and who takes them up on the things they announce. This particular piece is one that the Conservatives.... I support it.

It's not that we think that the grace period under the homebuyers' plan is a bad idea, but they estimate the cost at $42 million. We have seen already, just last week, how quickly their assumptions go off the rails when we had reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for example, that stated, a little over a month after the finance minister tabled his spring economic statement, that his numbers were already billions of dollars off on his deficit calculations.

We just want to add transparency and add reporting requirements for the government, because I think it will make them able to make better policy decisions. Any government of any stripe will make better policy decisions with better information.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Go ahead, Mr. Hallan.

Jasraj Hallan :

Thanks, Chair. I just want to add to what Mr. Kelly was saying. I agree with him. As someone who came from the housing industry, I think what we've seen.... The track record of the Liberal government has been a lot of grand announcements, as Mr. Kelly said, but no follow-through. They created a fourth housing bureaucracy when the first three didn't work, so we, along with Canadians, are very skeptical about anything that they have been doing. They've spent, I think, more than $90 billion of taxpayer money on housing so far, and housing starts are going down, according to their own housing agency.

As housing starts are going down, housing affordability has gone, and young people are locked out of housing because of Liberal spending. Mortgage costs are out the roof, and interest rates are still high. It's impossible for young people to get into housing, and anything that they've tried is just spending more money, which means future generations are having to pay for something, but youth are not getting into homes. In fact, even on the new housing bureaucracy, the PBO said that it's barely going to make a dent. I don't think it's going to touch even 10% of what they claimed.

It's just following the track record of this government of spending a lot of money with no results. This amendment would just provide more clarity because we keep hearing all these announcements. It's “We've done this,” but at the end of the day, it never really makes a change in Canadians' lives. We're just asking for more transparency and accountability for another couple of billion dollars that the government is spending to supposedly fix housing when housing has broken in this country under them.

The Chair :

Thank you Mr. Hallan. Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence :

Optimism springs eternal here. We've gone zero for three. Do you know what, though? I'm going to try to put my hand out here to Mr. Turnbull, and I'm going to work with Mr. Walsh here, if we could for a second, to see if I can't bring this within the parameters of things that are possible for the finance department to do. They will also establish some greater accountability. It's Mr. Turnbull's position that we can't, that this amendment would be impossible to fulfill, because the information required would not be done in time.

If we put a subamendment in place that said that you'll publish the report 30 days after that information has been received, is that something the Department of Finance could do?

(1705) Mark Walsh :

Thank you for your question. While I can't comment specifically on the question, I can say that, under this measure, individuals will be reporting their homebuyer plan withdrawal in their 2026 income tax return, which would be filed in the spring of 2027. There would be individuals who might not file it by April 30, so the comprehensive statistics on the number of individuals making an HBP withdrawal in 2026 would not be available until early 2028.

Philip Lawrence :

Okay. If we brought the amendment for two years after, the information would likely be available.

Mark Walsh :

I can't speak to the proposed amendment's subamendment.

Philip Lawrence :

I am not asking you to speak to a subamendment or an amendment. I am asking you whether the Department of Finance would have the information to publish a report on the number of Canadians affected by the homebuyers' plan repayment grace period if you had to publish that report in 2028.

Mark Walsh :

Again, for the individuals claiming their homebuyers' plan in 2026, comprehensive statistics would be available on that by 2028.

Philip Lawrence :

I take it, then, that for the 2026 tax year, if the report were published in 2028, we would have sufficient time. We've met that objection. That was the only objection I heard, so I will move that subamendment.

The Chair :

Can you please send the subamendment in writing? While we're waiting for that, if it's okay with the committee, I'll ask for UC to stand clause 6 and move on to clause 7. We'll return to clause 6 at the end. Do we have unanimous consent for that?

Some hon. members: Agreed. (Clause 6 allowed to stand) (On clause 7)

The Chair: We will move to CPC-5. Mr. Kelly.

Pat Kelly :

I'm sorry. Are you talking about clause 7 or the amendment?

The Chair :

It's clause 7 and it's amendment CPC-5.

Pat Kelly :

I'm sorry. I get my numbers confused a little bit between the number of the amendment and the number of the clause. I move to amend Bill C-30 in clause 7 by adding, after line 25 on page 4, the following:

(6) Within one year after the day on which this

section comes into force and every year after that, the Minister of National Revenue in collaboration with the Minister of Finance must publish a report on

(

a) the number of taxpayers who claimed the special allowance allowing the immediate expensing for eligible greenhouse buildings;

(

b) the fiscal cost of the eligible greenhouse special allowance; and

(

c) the geographic distribution of eligible greenhouse special allowance claims.

I will say again, although members are perhaps becoming familiar with the arguments we are making around transparency, that this government in so many cases over the last 11 years has lacked transparency.

Anything we can do to get the information to inform policy-makers so that Canadians can judge whether or not their policies have actually helped people—and, if so, how many—and whether this was a good idea that exceeded expectations and created positive policy outcomes or not, or whether it was just an announcement or something that was plugged into a bill, these are the things we need after the fact to be able to judge the government. I was elected in 2015, as you were, Chair. Your party promised to be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. It hasn't happened.

There's been a trend in the opposite direction towards secrecy and a refusal to give information to parliamentarians. Even the access to information system is as broken as ever. There is a real need and a real appetite among Canadians for openness and transparency in their government. That is why we have moved this amendment in addition to other amendments that the committee has heard so far.

The Chair :

Great. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Turnbull.

Ryan Turnbull :

For similar reasons, the government is opposed to this amendment. The type of information being requested is in fact already published annually in the report on federal tax expenditures, which is customarily tabled in the House of Commons under the main estimates. If members really want an independent, non-partisan analysis at any point, they obviously always have access to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and could make a request through the PBO.

It's also likely not possible for the government to table reports within the required parameters in the initial years because of the lag of data and information that comes in. As I think was indicated in the previous discussions we had on other amendments, the Conservatives seem to be eager to get the information without realizing the way that the tax system works. Those reporting requirements come later. In essence, it's duplicative. The information is already regularly annually reported within the federal tax expenditures.

It's not exactly what's being asked for, but it's close enough that there should be some transparency there that should satisfy the members opposite. Thank you.

(1710) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Mr. Hallan, go ahead.

Jasraj Hallan :

I want to see if the relevant department could answer a few questions on this amendment. This is based on the three paragraphs 7(6)(a), (

b) and (c). Let's ignore the top part. Did you have a chance to read the amendments?

Shane Baddeley (Director, Economic Development, Department of Finance) :

I have.

Jasraj Hallan :

I just want to know, based on what Mr. Turnbull is saying, if these exact things are provided as per the government, yes or no?

Shane Baddeley :

Thank you for the question. My name is Shane Baddeley. I'm the director of economic development at the Department of Finance in the tax policy branch. I can confirm that the information called for in paragraphs 7(6)(

a) and (b)—when this measure is implemented—would normally be in the report on federal tax expenditures. It's typical that you have the fiscal cost of the measure, as well as the number of beneficiaries. Normally, the geographical distribution is not something that's published. I will note, though, for the member that StatsCan does have a greenhouse sod and nursery survey that it puts out annually that does track the change in square footage of greenhouse area by region and by type of product, etc.

Jasraj Hallan :

First, Mr. Turnbull was not exactly correct in saying that this is already provided. If we're asking for the information in paragraph 7(6)(c), I imagine that it would be helpful to have it all in one place, rather than going through another report, for whatever government is making future decisions on whether the program is feasible or whether it's working out or not. Is that correct? Would it be helpful?

Shane Baddeley :

I can't speak to whether it would be more helpful. I can only speak to what's normally published in the report on federal tax expenditures.

Jasraj Hallan :

It's just more of a comment, then. For that part, it would be helpful to have it all in one place.

The Chair :

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

Ryan Turnbull :

What I heard the gentleman from the finance team say here is that the information called for in paragraphs (

a) and (

b) is actually included in the measures that are normally published in the federal tax expenditures, and that paragraph (c), the geographic distribution, is not published there, but there is greenhouse square footage by region in another area. In fact, the Conservatives would have access to the information that they're requesting already. Therefore, the amendment here is duplicative. If they didn't want to do the work of looking in multiple places, they could ask the PBO to draw it together and do some analysis for them. Essentially, this is duplicative. It's information that's already tracked.

I'll grant that it's in two different departments, but I don't see why that should be a barrier. Transparency is already there, so we'll be voting against.

The Chair :

Mr. Lawrence, go ahead.

Philip Lawrence :

I'm the eternal optimist here. It's Mr. Turnbull's assertion that one reason you couldn't publish the report called for in the amendment is that the information required for the report wouldn't be ready, but what's called for in paragraphs (

a) and (

b) is published in the tax expenditures report. When is the tax expenditures report published?

(1715) Shane Baddeley :

Normally, that's published with the main estimates in March or February, depending....

Philip Lawrence :

With respect to the “special allowance allowing the immediate expensing for eligible greenhouse buildings”, would that information for 2026 be available in the tax expenditure report for 2027?

Shane Baddeley :

Normally, it would be available in the tax expenditure report of 2029. Right now, for the 2026 tax expenditure report, we're running off of tax data for the 2023 tax year.

Philip Lawrence :

There does need to be that two-year gap. Does your department have the geographical distribution of eligible greenhouse special allowance claims?

Shane Baddeley :

By “geographical distribution” do you mean by province?

Philip Lawrence :

Yes, let's say by province.

Shane Baddeley :

I would imagine that in the CRA filing there would be the information by province, yes.

Philip Lawrence :

Okay. Do you know what the additional cost—or the additional man-hours—of providing that information would be?

Shane Baddeley :

That is a question I'm not in a position to answer.

Philip Lawrence :

That's fine. I would like to move a subamendment. If we wish to follow the same procedures as we did, that would be fine, Madam Chair. We'll put it in writing and then move forward to the next....

The Chair :

Do we have unanimous consent to stand clause 7?

Some hon. members: Agreed. (Clause 7 allowed to stand) (Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to on division) (On clause 11)

The Chair: Mr. Turnbull, are you introducing G-1?

Ryan Turnbull :

Yes, I can. I'm sorry. I just need to find my page number. I apologize, Madam Chair.

The Chair :

That's okay. While you're doing that, I do have an update from the clerks for the committee that the committee might be interested in knowing. One of the reasons the CRA is likely not here is that there are no CRA-led initiatives in Bill C-30 . They come from the Department of Finance. That would likely be the reason we don't have the CRA. Mr. Turnbull, are you ready?

Ryan Turnbull :

No, I'm sorry. I can't find the page number. I apologize.

The Chair :

You don't actually have to read it into the record, because we do have it.

Ryan Turnbull :

I will read it into record. To my colleague, thank you very much. I thought I was organized, but there are so many pages. I move that Bill C-30 , in clause 11, be amended by (

a) replacing line 7 on page 7 with “aviation gasoline, leaded aviation gasoline, diesel fuel or aviation fuel becomes payable” and (

b) replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 7 with the following:

(

b) the reference to “$0.11” in paragraph 9(

b) is to be read as a reference to “$0.00”; and

(

c) the reference to “$0.04” in

section 9.1 is to be read

That sounds a little bit confusing because part of the amendment cuts into one of the words, but it's a very minor technical amendment, indeed, for the fuel excise suspension the government announced recently that continues until Labour Day. This amendment responds to stakeholder input and requests to include leaded aviation gasoline within the scope of the temporary fuel excise tax relief. The government has stated that the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax is intended to apply to aviation fuels generally during the relief period.

The proposed change provides certainty regarding the application of the relief to leaded aviation gasoline to ensure that the scope of the measure is consistent with the policy intent. We know that the Conservative Party of Canada has expressed support for making the excise fuel tax suspension permanent, and we hope the party will be in favour—as all members, I'm sure, would be—of this minor technical amendment. The fiscal impacts of adding leaded aviation gasoline are fairly minimal.

(1720) The Chair :

Thank you.

Jasraj Hallan :

Thanks, Madam Chair. I'd be remiss if I didn't add the fact that this is only taking off a third of the tax for a third of the year. The Conservatives have been calling for the removal of all fuel taxes for the remainder of the year. Here is the difference: This would save families maybe a maximum of $100 or something like that,

whereas our plan would save Canadian families $1,200 for the entire year or up to 25¢ per litre. This would include getting rid of the other hidden carbon tax—the clean fuel standard the Liberals brought in that does nothing for the environment but only makes everything more expensive, including food, fuel and everything else when it comes to shipping the goods and services Canadians are buying—and, of course, removing the GST from everything for the rest of the year as well. As I said, that would give each family a total savings of $1,200.

I would try once again—as we've done in the House many times, where the Liberals would not support it—to move a subamendment to have this extended for the rest of the year instead of just temporarily.

The Chair :

Will you submit that in writing?

Jasraj Hallan :

Yes, Chair, we'll submit that.

The Chair :

Do we have unanimous consent, then, to stand clause—

Ryan Turnbull :

No. We should just suspend and get it in writing, Madam Chair.

The Chair :

We don't have UC to do that, then.

Ryan Turnbull :

No.

The Chair :

Okay. Then we will—

Philip Lawrence :

I have some more.... I'm just trying to—

The Chair :

Just give me a moment, please, Mr. Lawrence. We don't have UC. Mr. Lawrence, would you like to...?

Philip Lawrence :

I had a couple of questions about this clause that weren't directly on the—

The Chair :

We're on the subamendment now, so we can't do that.

Philip Lawrence :

Okay. That's fine. No problem.

The Chair :

We're on the subamendment. Since we don't have UC to stand this clause, we will briefly suspend.

An hon. member: [ Inaudible—Editor ]

The Chair: Yes, if you can submit that, then we'll come back. Thank you.

(1720) (1815) The Chair :

Colleagues, we are going to get started. You will have all received the CPC subamendment in your inboxes in both English and French. Mr. Hallan.

Jasraj Hallan :

The reason we're moving it forward is that we've tried over and over again to save Canadians more money, especially with summer coming up. There's a Liberal cost of living crisis in this country. Everything is up. Costs are up. Taxes are up. Having the government double Justin Trudeau's deficit did not help Canadians either. We have one of the highest food inflations in the entire G7. We have the highest housing costs and the highest household debt of the G7 because of Liberal policies. Things are not looking up for Canadians, as evidenced by the record number of food bank users.

With the subamendment, I'm trying to see if the Liberals will at least have a little bit of compassion for Canadians over the summer, so that we can save them even more money and extend this excise tax until the end of the year. It would actually deliver real cost savings to Canadians at the pump. In turn, this could also help bring down food costs because it will lower the cost of the fuel needed for transferring the goods and services that Canadians buy. This is to give Canadians a break. Let's try to extend this until then.

We've tried multiple times in the House of Commons to get rid of the excise tax for the rest of the year, the clean fuel standard the Liberals brought in and the GST on top of all of that, which would total a savings of 25¢ per litre, or a total of $1,200 for Canadian families for the rest of the year. The Americans pay about 15% or 20% less than we do. The only difference between the two are the Liberal taxes that get thrown on top of fuel. This is our attempt to save Canadians money. I hope the Liberals will find it within themselves to give Canadians a break.

The argument that this would blow a big hole in the budget is false because there's more that gets taken out in those revenues from Canadians than the savings that we're going to be putting into Canadians' pockets. I'll leave it there. I hope the Liberals will find a little bit of compassion to give Canadians a break for the rest of the year. Thank you.

(1820) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Hallan. Mr. Leitão.

Carlos Leitão (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, Lib.) :

Madam Chair, we're not going to support the subamendment. We already did what we did, suspending the excise tax for three months. That by itself is two-point-something billion dollars. That's that.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

Ryan Turnbull :

Madam Chair, I want to ask if this subamendment is admissible, given the fact that it would greatly increase the cost. It's not accounted for within the scope of this bill, and I believe it contravenes the prerogative of the Crown to spend money. I believe it is out of scope, but I want to check with you whether you've ruled on it.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Let me consult with the legislative clerks. Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. It is admissible because it's not requiring the government to spend additional money. It's just not enabling the government to recoup additional money. Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence :

Thank you. I would like to add my voice briefly. It's not the government's money to begin with. It is money that is earned by hard-working Canadians. The government taking less money is not in any way a charity to the people of this country. It's the charity of the people that supports the government. Quite frankly, their charity is running thin. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Viersen is next.

Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

I wanted to add as well that this ends before the harvest is complete. Farmers generally have a discount on fuel, but this would limit farmers' ability to get cheaper fuel as they go into harvest. In my neck of the woods, harvest begins in September, but it's generally not done until the end of November, and this would allow farmers to take full advantage of this tax exemption.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Viersen. Next is Mr. Kelly.

Pat Kelly :

I as well would like to get some thoughts on this on the record. In one of the arguments when we debated this in the House of Commons in an opposition motion and in the debate on the bill itself and the policy, we were told that the relatively short time horizon on the excise removal—just over the summer—was there because the prices were so volatile that the government didn't know if the price was going to come down right away and that maybe would have lower crude prices by the summer. I will note this just quickly.

I mean, I don't follow it day to day, but just a quick search here says that West Texas Intermediate is at $91.28 today. We have not seen relief in the crude price, which is one of the drivers that gave us the sharp rise in fuel costs for Canadians. Given that we're already.... I mean, that was many weeks ago now, Madam Chair, and the rationale they had then was that we should wait and see before we take additional measures. Some would say that we have waited. We have waited and the price is still very high. Gasoline prices are still very high. Canadians are very much pinched and could use the the relief.

The argument for extending the removal of not just this—the excise they're proposing here—but all federal taxes on fuel through to the end of the year is that it would be an important affordability measure for Canadians. The ongoing and prolonged high oil price would suggest that we should in fact extend this excise relief and, also, relief on other fuel taxes the Liberal government has imposed, like the clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax, which go into the input. I'm in favour of the motion.

(1825) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Turnbull is next.

Ryan Turnbull :

I have nothing further to say. Thanks.

The Chair :

Okay. Shall the CPC subamendment to G-1 carry?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: We'll have a vote. (Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Thank you. Going back to G-1— Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence :

I would like to propose the following subamendment. In the spirit of being, like I said, eternal optimists, we keep putting forward ideas, and we're hopeful that the Liberal government will join us and meet us at least halfway on one of these. I'll read out the particulars of it, but the substance of it is a suspension of the clean fuel standard, which of course drives up the cost of fuel. We're just doing it for the period that the Liberals had proposed—

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. That is inadmissible. That doesn't have anything to do with the bill at hand or the current amendment. You can't do that. The chair is ruling that inadmissible.

Philip Lawrence :

I haven't read the actual subamendment, so you can't—

The Chair :

You talked about the clean fuel standard and subamending it, and that's not a part of the actual clause, Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence :

Chair, I haven't read the subamendment. It's impossible for you to rule on something that doesn't exist.

The Chair :

Can you get to the point then, please?

Philip Lawrence :

Yes. I will read it right now.

I move that the amendment be amended by adding after proposed paragraph (c), paragraph (d), which adds after line 16 on page 7, the following: “1(1) for the period beginning on April 20, 2026, and ending on September 7, 2026, no primary suppliers defined in subsection 1(1) of the clean fuel regulations is required to satisfy a compliance obligation under those regulations in respect of gasoline, diesel fuel, unleaded aviation gasoline, leaded aviation gasoline, or aviation fuel” and “1(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1)(1) applies only in respect of fuel referred in that subsection, and only for the period during which the rate of tax in respect of that fuel is deemed to be zero under this section.”

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. That's still inadmissible because it's with regard to a tax that is not currently in that amendment. Thank you very much. Mr. Hallan.

Jasraj Hallan :

I'm going to give this a shot one more time. I'm going to try to move another subamendment to cross the dates off in proposed

section 9.2 and try to add the dates in both proposed paragraph (

a) and proposed paragraph (

b) to read as, “after April 19, 2026 until December 31, 2026.”

The Chair :

Mr. Hallan, that's inadmissible. The committee has already ruled on that. We've already gone over that. Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence :

Thank you. With respect, I believe we're back on the amendment, if that's correct, Chair.

The Chair :

We're back on the original G-1 amendment.

Philip Lawrence :

Thank you. We're in agreement. I was wondering if we have officials from Environment Canada who can briefly outline if there are any greater emissions or a greater carbon footprint from leaded aviation gasoline as opposed to the other fuels that are included.

(1830) The Chair :

Are there any officials in the room who can address that? Please come to the table. Thank you.

Philip Lawrence :

I have two questions for you. First, is there any greater environmental damage created by leaded aviation gasoline emissions? Second, is the amount of carbon created by the burning of leaded aviation gasoline equivalent to, lesser than or greater than the amount created by gasoline or diesel fuel?

[ Translation ]

Gervais Coulombe (Director General, Legislation, Sales Tax Division, Department of Finance) :

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. My name is Gervais Coulombe, and I am the director general in charge of excise tax legislation. First, I want to make clear that I work for the Department of Finance, not Environment and Climate Change Canada. Generally speaking, we know that leaded aviation gasoline is the only type of aviation fuel currently available in Canada. Its uses are extremely limited. It is used in a few cases in very remote areas for certain agricultural needs. It's used to fuel very small piston-engined aircraft. Unleaded aviation gasoline doesn't seem to be available in Canada right now.

You asked whether it creates greater environmental damage, and the short answer is that it's the only type of gasoline piston engines use. The second part of your question was about the greenhouse gas emissions, and as far as I know, any difference there might be is quite minimal. The combustion of lead doesn't contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. However, that isn't a definitive answer, since we haven't studied or analyzed that. Generally speaking, though, I don't think the difference in greenhouse gas emissions would be significant.

In terms of a constructive response, that's the best I can give you right now.

[ English ]

Philip Lawrence :

Thank you very much for that. I am a bit disappointed that we don't have anyone from Environment Canada here to tell us about the environmental impact of lead, but I think you did the best you could. I really do appreciate that. Thank you.

The Chair :

Shall G-1 carry? (Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chair: Staying on clause 11, we go to CPC-6. Mr. Hallan, you have the floor.

Jasraj Hallan :

I move that Bill C-30 , in clause 11, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 7 the following:

(3) Within 30 days after September 7, 2026, the Minister of National Revenue, in collaboration with the Minister of Finance, must prepare a report on the application of this

section and cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.

(4) The report must

(

a) set out the impact of the application of this section, including on fuel prices, transportation costs, food prices, household expenses and inflation;

(

b) include an assessment of the costs and benefits of extending the application of this

section beyond September 7, 2026; and

(

c) include an estimate of the fiscal impact of the application of this section.

(5) The Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance must publish the report on the website of the Department of National Revenue and of the Department of Finance, respectively, within 10 days after the day on which the report is tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

Once again, there's a big difference between what the Conservatives are calling for, which would be more relief for Canadian families, a total of $1,200, compared to what the Liberals are offering, which is not very much. It's a third of the tax they're taking off for a third of the year, which totals about $100-something of savings altogether. This would help in many ways. First, if this were to continue, if the war continues and gas prices stay high, we would have a clear indication after summer what that savings looks like for families, because we know that there may or may not be more usage in the summer.

A lot of families are struggling. A lot of families are holding back on taking any trips, going on vacation or even going on road trips because of the price of gas. What we're essentially asking for is some more clarity and transparency on what it would look like if we had to extend this even further.

As I said before when I was trying to pass my subamendment, the savings Canadians would receive would be less of a burden on the budget of Canada's finances than the current taxes that are collected altogether because of the clean fuel standard, which adds a lot of costs and takes a lot of money out of Canadians' pockets, and which, again, has no environmental value whatsoever and is doing nothing but making Canadians poorer. That's clear to see. It's increasing the cost of food and fuel, and that's making a huge impact. Now we're hearing stories about food banks that are running out of food.

They're not able to replenish the food because they're running out of money to replenish the food that is being taken out of their food banks in record amounts, and there are record lineups at those food banks. We know from the last subamendment we tried to pass that Liberals are not in favour of giving Canadians more of a break, whether that's to their wallets or to help reduce the cost of food and fuel. This is a chance to give a clear indication that we will continue to remove the tax until global conditions get better. This is something that's in our hands. Whatever we can control in Canada, we should.

This would help set some guidelines, or it would set some targets if we ever need to continue to take the tax off fuel in the future. I hope we can bring that clarity and transparency to Canadians.

(1835) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Hallan. Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

Ryan Turnbull :

There was a whole of string of assertions Mr. Hallan made in that intervention that I disagree with, but I'll just focus on the arguments as to why the government obviously supported the amendment. We put it forward, so it's no surprise. In terms of the transparency that the member opposite suggests he's looking for, the fuel excise tax suspension is estimated to have a fiscal impact of $2.41 billion in 2026-27. That's in the spring economic update. It's very transparent and out there already for members to assess. It certainly is not....

The measure of extending this for numerous other months in the year was already decided on by the committee. Mr. Hallan said he was looking to assess the extension of this, but we already decided against that with the last vote on his subamendment. However, the fiscal impact is very clear: $2.41 billion in this fiscal year.

Also, just in terms of the other indicators that are identified, there's a range of domestic and international factors beyond the temporary fuel excise tax relief, and it would be challenging, or at least we feel it would be challenging, to isolate the effects of the fuel excise tax relief from some of those indicators, especially given data limitations in the time frame contemplated by this.

I've also mentioned previously that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is at parliamentarians' disposal to provide independent, non-partisan financial and economic analysis when needed, so you could certainly make a request if greater in-depth analysis were desired or warranted. That's all I have to say about this. Thanks, Madam Chair. Hopefully, we can get to a vote soon.

(1840) The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Kelly, go ahead.

Pat Kelly :

I was listening to Mr. Turnbull. He did point out—and it's true—that we just voted down an extension of the excise relief, plus other measures. However, is he now saying it's the government's position to absolutely shut the door on such an extension? The argument made by the government is that these prices are volatile and we don't know how long these prolonged high world crude prices will persist. That was quite some time ago now, Madam Chair. We're moving into the middle of June now with exceptionally high world crude prices, and I would hope the door might be open for extended tax relief.

Having the information and having information reported within 30 days—which would be September 7—would be helpful to that end. Again, I know that they make the argument that the information should be available somewhere else or could be made available. He mentioned the ability of opposition members to get the Parliamentary Budget Officer to study these matters. However, I think the point here is that in proposed paragraph (4)(a), we're saying that the report must:

(

a) set out the impact of the application of this section, including on fuel prices, transportation costs, food prices, household expenses and inflation;

The government's position has been that carbon taxes or taxes on fuel don't affect the price of food and are not inflationary. These are arguments that they have made repeatedly in the House of Commons. They have said that it was fake when Conservatives asserted that carbon taxes inflate or raise the price of food, so we would like to see this reporting. Asking the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do special reports on these types of items is something I hoped we wouldn't have to do.

However, even if we do, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and her office have, in some cases, struggled to get the information from the government. We've heard refusals to supplying information. I can think of a particular case, which was litigated at the government operations committee, in which the Parliamentary Budget Officer was not getting the information needed to complete the work. I'd like to see this bill amended so that we do get the information that policy-makers should have at their fingertips and that Canadians would like to see.

I support this amendment, notwithstanding the arguments that have been made in opposition to it.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Viersen is next.

Arnold Viersen :

I'd like to add my voice to this as well. To Mr. Turnbull about the $2.4 billion, that's a projected number. There's a whole bunch of variables that are at play, and I would like to see the government have to own that number for themselves. Coming in the fall, they should say, “Okay, here's what we did, and here's the result that it had.” Perhaps people travel less than anticipated. That would have less of a savings than the $2.4 billion. Perhaps the fuel price goes to a different place so that the estimated price is not the same. The other thing Mr.

Turnbull brought up when we were debating the extension of the tax relief past September 8, and which I would point out is in our amendment in (b), is that it would “include the assessment of the costs and benefits of extending the application” past that. I know that the government has talked about possibly doing that, and we would say that in this report we would be asking for—as they have done with the $2.4 billion in this—if they moved it forward, what kind of impact it would have. I think that's clear in this motion, and I hope the Liberals support it.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Viersen. Mr. Lawrence is next.

Philip Lawrence :

Thank you. Some of the comments were eloquently discussed by my colleagues. I'll shorten mine accordingly. The challenge I have—and I mean this sincerely—is that it's a bit troubling to me that a government, instead of producing their own documents or their own disclosure, is saying, “You can just go to the PBO.” The PBO is there to review the government's numbers and then assess them independently, but the government has to give you those numbers first. The PBO should never be a substitute for a government being transparent. That's just a fallacy of logic and is, on its face, incorrect.

My colleague is exactly right as well. There is a big difference between a projection and what has actually happened. As my colleague said, there can be reasonable explanations for why a projection would be different from an estimation. If you made a projection in 2019 and then COVID happened, your projection would be way off. That's not because the government has done anything wrong. It's just that we had a once-in-a-generation pandemic. We would like to see the actual numbers in addition to the projection. In fact, comparing the projection to the actual numbers is of value. I was wondering if Mr.

Marsh could return. I have some questions with respect to that $2.41 billion.

(1845) The Chair :

Certainly. Mr. Marsh, could you join us at the table please? Is there no...? Did you want to ask another witness?

Philip Lawrence :

Whoever is capable....

The Chair :

Would either of you like to answer that question?

Philip Lawrence :

Yes, absolutely. I'm happy to ask them as well. We have the $2.41-billion projection. We have had the exemption or suspension of certain amounts of the exemption. Are we on pace to achieve the $2.41 billion, or is it costing the treasury more or vice versa?

[ Translation ]

Gervais Coulombe :

Thank you for your question. The gas and diesel tax bases have been in place in Canada for decades. We have a very clear idea of consumption, and it's fairly stable. I will say that prices are still high, and that was the reason for the temporary 10¢-per-litre reduction on gasoline and 4¢-per-litre reduction on diesel. Since there is no indication that the estimates included in the 2026 economic update were not reasonable, the number Mr. Turnbull and the government gave, [ English ] the $2.41 billion, continues to be, to my best knowledge, the best estimate we have.

For completeness, the final number will actually be shown in the 2026-27 public accounts of Canada, which is typically tabled in the House of Commons in the fall.

Philip Lawrence :

How is the excise tax remitted? Is it remitted on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis?

Gervais Coulombe :

The excise tax is typically remitted on a monthly basis by the fuel distributors or fuel producers. For instance, for the month of April, the first month during which the exemption was available, returns were due to the CRA by the end of May.

Philip Lawrence :

We're still in the early part of June. Do you have any estimates on what those numbers look like?

Gervais Coulombe :

I don't have any estimates with me, but these would be very preliminary numbers with respect to the month of April.

Philip Lawrence :

As a second line of questioning here, are there any showstoppers in terms of your department complying with amendment CPC-6?

Gervais Coulombe :

I'm not in a position to identify here, before committee members, whether there are showstoppers or not. What I can tell you is that the best estimate has already been provided out there in the public—the $2.41-billion figure. In the amendment, the measure in itself is relatively straightforward. We're taking a rate of 10¢ per litre for gasoline and we're putting it to zero. It would not be appropriate for me to take

part in a political debate.

(1850) Philip Lawrence :

No, that's fine. I'll just ask you the question specifically. Would it be reasonable for you to prepare a report on the financial impact of the suspension of the excise tax on fuel 30 days after, or would you need more like 60 days or 90 days?

Gervais Coulombe :

I'm just not in a position to start to speculate on the timing. As I told the committee, these numbers are typically provided as part of the public accounts. Dozens of accountants in the federal family work hard to make sure that those public accounts are properly prepared and include all sorts of year-end adjustments. Madam Chair, I will not speculate more on that particular matter.

Philip Lawrence :

I'm not asking you to speculate. I appreciate the hard-working civil servants and the work they do for Canadians every day, but my question is relatively specific. It's not speculation. In accordance with this, it says:

(3) Within 30 days after September 7, 2026, the Minister of National Revenue, in collaboration with the Minister of Finance, must prepare a report on the application of this

section

It would cause the report to be tabled in the House. You were telling me that the excise tax is reported on a monthly basis and that you would get the information to your department within about 30 days after. That's the evidence, as I understand it, that you've submitted. I'm trying to get to whether this amendment of 30 days after is unreasonable. I'm actually thinking that it is. To be fair to the great people at the Department of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency, I'm thinking that we need it to be more like 90 days or 120 days.

Gervais Coulombe :

Madam Chair, I have already responded to that question. Thank you.

Philip Lawrence :

I'll keep asking until you answer. I'm sorry, Chair, but they have an obligation to provide an answer. I've asked a specific question—

The Chair :

I know, Mr. Lawrence. You can keep asking the question, but the witness has provided an answer.

Philip Lawrence :

I will reframe it. I'll go back to the amendment for page 7, which says that the report must:

(

a) set out the impact of the application of this section, including on fuel prices, transportation costs, food prices, household expenses and inflation;

If you were to prepare a report or if the finance department were to prepare a report, would 90 days be sufficient to do that?

[ Translation ]

Gervais Coulombe :

Additionally, Madam Chair, I can say that the effects of the measure on the indicators listed in the motion are very difficult to isolate, as the government previously explained. On the basis of the information we were given, I don't think it would be possible to report on those indicators. However, the total cost of the measure, the $2.41‑billion estimate, is still true, and the anticipated price reduction is 10¢ per litre for gasoline and 4¢ per litre for diesel. Of course, that doesn't include sales tax.

[ English ]

Philip Lawrence :

Mr. Coulombe, I'll finish with this. I really was not expecting this to be a controversial line of questioning. I thought it was quite simple. I'm quite disappointed that you can't figure out the amount of time it would take you to prepare a report after the filing. I was actually trying to be gracious to your department to make sure that we didn't overwhelm them. I'll try one more time, and then we'll leave this be. You have testified so far that the excise tax is collected or reported on a monthly basis, and then that information is collated and put together a month later. It's about a two-month process.

That's your testimony so far. If you were to have to deliver that information to the House of Commons, after that month would 90 days be sufficient for your department to do it, or would that be creating too much of a burden on the great people of the Minister of Finance and the great people of the Minister of National Revenue?

(1855) [ Translation ]

Gervais Coulombe :

Madam Chair, I've already answered that question.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. We'll continue with Mr. Hallan.

Jasraj Hallan :

We already know that the government doesn't want to take off the taxes or extend the tax relief until the end of the year. We've tried multiple times. This is simply asking for tracking. It's asking for some data. That's all we're asking for. It's disappointing to see how much the Liberal government keeps fighting having more transparency and accountability while at the same time not wanting to save Canadians more money. I find that ridiculous, so I wanted to add that.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Hallan. Mr. Kelly.

Pat Kelly :

I have a subamendment to this amendment. I move that the amendment be subamended by replacing proposed paragraph 11(4)(

c) with the following:

(

c) include an estimate of the fiscal impact of the application of this section; and

(

d) describe the methodology and data sources used to assess the impacts referred to in paragraphs (

a) to (c).

The Chair :

Could you please send that in writing to the clerks? Then we'll have to send it to translation in order to circulate it to the members. Do we have unanimous consent to stand this clause?

Pat Kelly :

I'm not sure that we should. Mr. Turnbull, on the last one.... I see the logic of taking these things one at a time and not letting them pile up. Let's deal with this and deal with the subamendment.

The Chair :

There is no unanimous consent. Therefore, we will briefly suspend while we receive that and get it translated. Thank you.

(1855) (1930) The Chair :

Colleagues, you have now received the documents in your inbox, so we are going to resume. Shall the subamendment for CPC-6 carry?

Pat Kelly :

Are you taking speakers to debate it first?

The Chair :

I've already asked if this one will carry so.... I got everybody back.

Pat Kelly :

That was pretty quick.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Shall the subamendment for CPC-6 carry? (Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Garon.

[ Translation ]

Jean-Denis Garon :

I know we have a lot of work to do, Madam Chair, so I don't want to slow the committee down further. Nor do I want to point any fingers or anything like that. I know everyone here is working hard. However, twice now, we've suspended the meeting so we can get fairly short subamendments translated. Each time, the meeting was suspended for 45 to 50 minutes. Why did it take so long? What is the holdup? Do we not have enough resources? If that's the case, perhaps we should ask for more. I realize that sometimes members may not agree with the subamendment.

Obstruction may be at play, or it may be perceived that way, but it's not normal to have to wait almost an hour every time. We'll never finish at this rate.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Garon. I agree. Waiting that long for translation isn't acceptable. I asked the legislative clerk to look into it. He said there were technical issues, but I'm going to ask the legislative clerk or committee clerk to file a complaint with the House. It's really not normal, but we are going to carry on.

Jean-Denis Garon :

If I may say, Madam Chair, I think this relates to parliamentary privilege. It could potentially stop people from putting forward amendments and subamendments because they don't want to hold things up for an hour or hour and a half. It could also have the opposite effect, where people put forward amendments precisely to slow things down and make the committee wait an hour each time. I seriously question whether we can keep working under the circumstances, given how long we have to wait. I know everyone is working hard. That's not the issue. I know resources were cut back, but how can we keep working? Are we going to get through three clauses between now and midnight?

The Chair :

That's a good question. I will ask the translation bureau. We will obviously file a complaint. Thank you for raising the issue. We'll continue now. [ English ] We will return to the main amendment, on CPC-6. Mr. Kelly.

Pat Kelly :

Before we proceed to that, I think Mr. Lawrence will speak to it. You were awfully quick to ask the question. For the practice of committee and the rules and practice that we normally follow, when you announced—

The Chair :

Is this a point of order, Mr. Kelly?

Pat Kelly :

Yes, it is. I wished to debate and to make the argument for that subamendment and you didn't afford me the opportunity to do so. It wasn't because I had delayed in trying to get your attention or because I had not been on top of it. You immediately posed the question without even inviting or asking if members wished to speak to it. I'm not going to challenge your ruling, but I am going to ask you if that was an error on your part or if that will be in the normal process. How will we ensure that we can get your attention if you immediately put the question without allowing members—

(1935) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I did look around the room. I didn't see anyone raise their hand. I take it under advisement. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

The Chair :

We will return to the main amendment on CPC-6. (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4) (Clause 11 as amended agreed to on division) (Clause 12 agreed to on division) (Clause 13 agreed to) (Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to on division)

The Chair: We are on new clause 15.1 and CPC-7. Mr. Lawrence will speak to that.

Pat Kelly :

You're welcome.

Philip Lawrence :

Thank you. I would move the following amendment to add:

15.1

(1) Within six months after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, and once a year for the two following years, the Minister of National Revenue in collaboration with the Minister of Finance must undertake a comprehensive review of the operation of sections 12 to 15 of this Act and table a report on the review in each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.

(2) The report must include

(

a) an estimate of the fiscal impact of the application of the sections referred to in subsection (1) and;

(

b) an assessment of the impact of those sections on domestic alcohol producers, including on small and medium-sized brewers.

(3) The Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance must publish the report on the website of the Department of National Revenue and of the Department of Finance, respectively, within 10 days after the day on which the report has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

This is another of several amendments we have brought. Our motivation here is to increase the amount of reporting. We understand that some of this information may be available in bits and pieces, but we would like to see a clear way for Canadians, commentators and analysts to review this information, not only for a projection but so that it can be reviewed and audited so that people can gauge whether this reform and these other reforms have been successful. We understand that the PBO is there to evaluate the government, but it's not the PBO's job, nor should it be, to provide disclosure.

There was a previous government that said that it would be open by default, and that government certainly did not live up to that. However, perhaps the Carney government would live up to this by providing greater disclosure. I believe that none of these requests, this one included, is particularly onerous, and we believe that it is the government's obligation to provide good value for money. This would enable not just us but commentators, the PBO and, most importantly, all of Canada and Canadians the ability to benchmark the progress and the success or non-success of the government. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

Ryan Turnbull :

Similar to other amendments that have been proposed by the Conservatives, it'll come as no surprise that we oppose this one as well. The reason is that they're asking for the fiscal impact of these measures, which has already been included, for the alcohol excise duty relief measures, in the spring economic update. It's $66 million over five years, starting in 2026-27. There's also some concern about being able to isolate some of the other impacts that this relief may interact with.

Members might be interested in how these relief measures would affect consumer preferences, provincial pricing policies, input costs, international trade conditions and broader economic conditions, but we feel it would be challenging to isolate those impacts, especially in the short term, as proposed in the amendment. To respond to Mr. Lawrence, the Parliamentary Budget Officer does really important work independently to aid in our democracy and our parliamentary debates by doing fiscal and economic analysis. The Department of Finance regularly provides datasets to the PBO.

I've never actually heard of the office not providing information to the PBO. Where there have been challenges in the past, it's been when the Conservatives want to get access to that data that can't be released for confidentiality reasons more broadly. The information is often shared from the Department of Finance to the PBO to do their analysis. They publish their reports publicly, which are aggregated results. That information flow has been fairly regular. I don't know of any instances where data has been held back from the PBO.

If members of Parliament want additional information or analysis, I'm sure they can request that from the PBO. We don't feel that what is being asked for here merits all the additional operational costs. In fact, we're actually trying to reduce the operating costs and increase the efficiency of the government. Members opposite used to believe in that, and now it seems like they want the opposite. It seems very inconsistent, but I'll leave it to the Conservatives to justify to their constituents why they want to increase government operating expenses. I'll leave it there.

(1940) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Mr. Kelly, go ahead.

Pat Kelly :

Thank you. To respond to the question that Mr. Turnbull put to me, the Conservatives expect accountability and transparency from the government. It's been lacking in so many ways over the last 11 years, and these amendments are meant to encourage the government to embrace reporting and data. I mentioned earlier the Auditor General reports that frequently cite the poor tracking of data and the lack of information that the government has to measure its own success and failure.

This comes up time and time again, where the Auditor General looks at a department and says that they don't have the data to measure the efficacy of whatever they're undertaking. They get their spending authorization from Parliament, and they get told what their objectives are. Without data, the public service may think they're doing a fine job, but when the Auditor General comes in they find that they are not doing as well as they think they are, and they don't have the data to benchmark their results. That's why we are big on transparency and accountability.

Accountability comes with being able to measure the progress of items. With this one in particular.... I had a private member's bill in the last Parliament about the excise escalator. It's funny that the government brought in the escalator. There was no escalator before. It used to be that the government had to vote increases on excise in the House of Commons, just like the Crown has had to do since the Magna Carta. They've had to turn to Parliament to be able to tax citizens. They gave themselves the escalator.

Then, in subsequent years when the escalator became increasingly unpopular, especially among brewers as well as among consumers, they went ahead and reduced the rate at which they were automatically increasing the excise on alcohol. We don't agree with the policy of an automatic escalator on excise. When the government then, from year to year, tinkers with it by not increasing per the automatic increase that they gave themselves, we want to see accountability and we want to see the reporting as described in the motion.

Since it appears that the government will not support this amendment, I might try to see if we can massage it a little bit with a subamendment. I'm going to propose that the amendment be amended by replacing paragraph (

b) of the proposed subsection 15.1(2) with the following:

(

b) an assessment of the impact of those sections on domestic alcohol producers, including on small and medium-sized brewers; and

(

c) a

summary of any publicly available data used to prepare the assessment referred to in paragraph (b).

Just for the record, once this is translated, I wish to speak to the subamendment.

(1945) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Please send that in writing. I'm going to take a chance here and ask if there is unanimous consent to let this one stand. We can come back to it at the end of the meeting.

Pat Kelly :

I don't think so. I think, as Mr. Turnbull established earlier, it's best to take these one at a time. Let's get this one dealt with.

The Chair :

The will of the committee is so wonderful. Excellent. We will take a brief suspension. Thank you.

(1945) (2000) The Chair :

Colleagues, the committee meeting is resumed. You will have received the translated subamendment and the original text in your inbox. Mr. Kelly, the floor is yours.

Pat Kelly :

I'm glad I was able to catch your eye and participate in the debate on this subamendment. I didn't get a chance to talk about this in the last one. We've added, on both of these, the

summary of publicly available data used to prepare the assessment referred to in proposed paragraph (b), which is:

an assessment of the impact of those sections on domestic alcohol producers, including on small and medium-sized brewers.

Canadians want to know what data is used and if it is publicly available. They want to know what source they're using and how the government comes to its conclusions. Again, in the interest of transparency, it's never too late to do the right thing. This government campaigned in 2015 on being the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. That has not been the experience of Canadians. We see that in almost every way you can measure it, from refusals to table documents that Parliament has voted upon—the same at committee—and the ongoing backlogs under the Access to Information Act.

I just got an ATIP back the other day that was so old, it was astounding. The information was pretty basic stuff that I think they should have been able to come up with quickly, just like in most other peer jurisdictions. Canadians want their government to be open with them. They want accountability. We don't want extra bureaucracy. We don't want them to expand the public service, but what we do want is the public service to be accountable to Canadians.

That's why we have asked for a series of amendments to this bill that would create reporting mechanisms so that Canadians can track the progress of their government. They make a lot of announcements. It's the follow-through that is so important. Every time there's an announcement, Canadians should be thinking, “All right, they've announced something. This sounds really good, but how are we going to verify that any of this really happens?” That's why we proposed this amendment. We haven't had a lot of success in carrying these amendments.

I imagine that my colleague will offer the reasons the government can't provide the information that we've asked for, why they shouldn't do it or how Canadians could get this information some other way, so why would we need the government to do this? I hope this might be the one where we break through and have agreement that these kinds of reporting mechanisms would be a good thing. They would go a long way in helping Canadians have confidence in government decision-making. With that, I'll see if anyone else has anything to add to this debate on the subamendment.

The Chair :

Seeing no one, shall the subamendment on CPC-7 carry? (Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

The Chair: We'll go back to CPC-7. Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.

(2005) Pat Kelly :

I'm sorry that the subamendment didn't carry. I thought that perhaps the subamendment would give new support or be able to help us find support for the main amendment, to which the government had already spoken and indicated its non-support. I'll try one more time with this to make the argument and convince the government-side members that reporting is a good thing and transparency is the way through to accountability, Madam Chair. Canadians expect their parliamentarians to hold the government to account, and not just the opposition members.

The members of this committee all have a constitutional duty to hold their government to account. Mr. Turnbull is a spokesperson for the government. We understand. He's the parliamentary secretary. He's going to defend the government. That's his job. That's what he does. The other members have a duty to hold the government to account. That's what the parliamentary system is all about. I hope that my extra little addition to the debate on this amendment might help put us over the top, but my hopes are not high.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Strauss.

Matt Strauss (Kitchener South—Hespeler, CPC) :

I'm really sorry, Chair. I'm new to this committee. I've also never been to a clause-by-clause meeting before. I'm just curious, regarding Mr. Kelly's amendment, if I have the right Excise Tax Act. I'm trying to find the act that the bill modifies and that his amendment would therefore modify. I have the Excise Tax Act from 1985 up. I'm looking at

schedule II.1, but this is pertaining to gasoline and unleaded gasoline. Like I said, I've never been here before. I wonder if it would be possible for the clerk to put up the act that we're actually changing so we can all know what we're talking about.

The Chair :

You can look it up, Mr. Strauss.

Matt Strauss :

Chair, I'm saying that I am. I'm looking for a point of clarification, because I have the Excise Tax Act.

The Chair :

I'm sure your staff can help you with this, Mr. Strauss.

Matt Strauss :

My staff don't work this late.

The Chair :

Okay. Do you have anything else you'd like to...? This is not the job of the clerks. You can do that work, sir.

Matt Strauss :

Is anyone able to tell me if it is the wrong Excise Tax Act? If the next person to put their hand up wants to tell me if it's not the Excise Tax Act from 1985, I'd be grateful to learn.

The Chair :

I have Mr. Ho next on the list. If he would like to add something to that, he's welcome to.

Pat Kelly :

I could explain it on the record for Mr. Strauss.

The Chair :

Mr. Ho, you have the floor.

Vincent Ho (Richmond Hill South, CPC) :

This is also my first time at the finance committee. It's great to see so many colleagues here today talking about such an important bill. We're talking about Bill C-30 today. We're talking about this amendment. Its focus is on small and medium-sized brewers, if I'm not mistaken. I think it's a very important amendment. It's important that we talk about small and medium-sized businesses and excise tax relief for small and medium-sized businesses.

We know that when it comes to small and medium-sized businesses, they can't afford the fancy, high-priced consultants and lobbyists who would circle Ottawa and the offices of MPs, ministers and department officials. Having some sort of relief as well as this assessment of the impact of those sections that we're discussing and of the measures and the impacts that they have is of great importance. Small and medium-sized businesses are always left behind. There are a lot of small and medium-sized businesses in Richmond Hill and in the greater Toronto area.

There are brewers all over the GTA and southern Ontario, and they tell me all of the time that they don't feel heard. I meet with them all of the time. Some employ maybe five employees. Some employ 50, 100 or 200 employees, but they don't feel heard. They're not part of some fancy industry organization, and they can't produce those reports or get that dataset. Sometimes they rely on the government to provide that information, whether it's through StatsCan...and we know how important the work is that they do in providing Canadians and businesses timely information.

That's something that I think this committee and all parliamentarians.... We're here to represent Canadians. We're not here to represent the interests of the government. For the people who live in our ridings, their communities include those small business owners who are often forgotten. When they see the hundred-million-dollar and multi-billion-dollar cheques that this government writes, it just looks like corporate welfare, time and time again.

The Liberal government likes to say, “Oh, this is a new government.” We're seeing the same sorts of press releases as the last Liberal government put out on corporate welfare and cheques that were written. It seems like the voices of small and medium-sized businesses, including brewers in the GTA and across Ontario, and across the country, for that matter, are not heard. I think it's very reasonable to have this review so that there's timely, recurring information. I've been in office now for 13 or 14 months.

One of the things I feel as a parliamentarian is the frustration that sometimes there's information we don't get, even as business owners. I was a business student before. I was a lawyer before. It's about getting information, but it's not readily made available. Having some of that information from the government would help, especially when small and medium-sized businesses don't have the resources to hire the consultants to do the surveys and influence public opinion.

They're relying on the government to provide that kind of information, whether it's through investment or the fiscal impact of these taxes that seem to keep increasing. We're living in the middle of a cost of living crisis. That doesn't just impact Canadians, families and consumers. It impacts the businesses too. They're facing rising input costs that are not addressed, of course, because of the high Liberal taxes and red tape that seem to always increase. Having some of that information readily available is important to those businesses, which also create jobs.

Sometimes folks who are in the government for too long forget that. The government doesn't create the jobs. Businesses do. People do. Canadians do. Canadians willing to take that risk on entrepreneurship and create that enterprise are the ones who are creating the jobs. We know small and medium-sized businesses employ a vast majority of the workforce. It's not large businesses. It's not government, for that matter.

(2010) We've seen the government grow. A lot of times, we see some government MPs brag about job numbers. Actually, the vast majority of growth in a given month could just be seasonal work or part-time jobs. Worse yet, it could be government employment. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the economy and we need to make sure we support them. That includes the timely information that we are able to get for those businesses that cannot hire those high-priced consultants or issue those surveys to be able to obtain that. It's a very reasonable, common-sense....

We talk about sovereignty and all that. That's a Liberal government talking point in a press release about Canadian sovereignty, buy Canadian and all that. We don't understand that lots of times large businesses are foreign-owned and most shareholders—

Jake Sawatzky (New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, Lib.) :

I have a point of order. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. This has nothing to do with the amendment. Can we get back to what we should be doing here?

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Sawatzky. Mr. Ho, could you stick to the amendment at hand, please?

Vincent Ho :

Let's talk about the amendment. The amendment talks about, in proposed paragraph 15.1(2)(b), “an assessment of the impact of those sections on domestic alcohol producers, including on small and medium-sized brewers.” The point I want to talk about is small and medium-sized brewers. The point I was trying to make before I was interrupted was the importance of small and medium-sized businesses on the economy and why it's so important that this amendment is supported by this committee. We're elected to do a job where we're not supposed to represent corporate interests as parliamentarians.

We're supposed to represent Canadians. That includes representing small businesses and those who work in these businesses. We know that small and medium-sized businesses employ the majority of those workers. Before I was interrupted, we were talking about small and medium-sized businesses. I'll get back to the point that I was making earlier about the high-priced lobbyists who are able to get that sort of corporate welfare that small and medium-sized businesses never seem to get. I talk to businesses all the time in my riding—the great riding of Richmond Hill South.

They always ask why the supports that the Liberals announce never seem to reach their way. They're the ones tightening their belts. When they need timely information, they aren't able to get it from the government. It seems like they're paying so much in taxes, but when it comes to saving for a rainy day, they're on their own and those supports always end up going to large enterprises. The point is very relevant, actually, because we're talking about how to support small and medium-sized businesses. To say that it's not relevant.... I mean, should we talk about large businesses?

That's what the Liberals have been doing for the past year and a half. They've been giving these big corporate cheques to large businesses and using all these buzzwords like “sovereignty” and “buy Canadian” and all that. I think the whole buy Canadian concept that the Liberals have tried to introduce has been quite a joke. You don't even need to hire Canadian workers or have full Canadian ownership when you use that label. Today, we're talking about the small and medium-sized brewers. Can we agree that this is an important concept? We have brewers all over the country and all across Ontario and the GTA.

They don't have access to that information or the impacts that affect.... Lobbyists always print these nice glossy brochures. The Liberals like to call them stakeholders, but they're really registered lobbyists, a lot of times. I've been here for a year now and I've realized that even the people who appear at these committees don't have the best interests of Canadians.... They can't hire lobbyists and they can't hire the consultants. Who, then, are Canadians going to count on? They're going to count on parliamentarians to stand up for them.

That means that as parliamentarians we have to advocate on their behalf so that we can make the common-sense amendments that we need in these bills.. Bill C-30 is a very important bill. It's talking about the spring economic update, but some people are calling this an update of Liberal-managed decline. That's what it's really about.

(2015) Jake Sawatzky :

I have a point of order. Chair, we're supposed to be talking about the excise tax for alcohol. This is a very long, rambling filibuster. A lot of resources go into this committee and it's clear this isn't going anywhere related to this amendment. I'd like to see if we can bring this back to something that's going to be remotely productive.

Vincent Ho :

I'm going to wrap—

The Chair :

That's an interesting suggestion.

Vincent Ho :

I will wrap it up, Chair.

The Chair :

Continue, Mr. Ho.

Vincent Ho :

I will wrap it up, Chair. Thank you, Member, for the suggestion. I think our economy could be a lot more productive—you talked about productivity—when the Liberal government gets out of the way. I'm going to end my remarks on this very important amendment to this very important bill. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Ho. Shall CPC-7 carry? (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5) (Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to on division)

The Chair: We are on new clause 18.1 and CPC-8. Who's speaking to that?

(2020) Philip Lawrence :

Go ahead, Chair.

The Chair :

Do you want me to speak to it? I don't think you want me to.

Philip Lawrence :

I'm sure you'll love this. I'm fully confident.

The Chair :

I'm not sure. Please go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence :

All right. I'm moving that Bill C-30 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 11 the following new clause:

Annual Report

18.1 Within one year after the day on which this Division comes into force and every year after that, the Minister of Finance must publish a report on

(

a) the investments exempted from the application of the Investment Canada Act as a result of the provisions enacted by this Division; and

(

b) the number and type of foreign bank-related investments affected by the provisions enacted by this Division.

To give a couple of comments in support of this important amendment, it is consistent with the theme of asking for greater accountability. We have attempted on a number of occasions to work with the Department of Finance, the Canada Revenue Agency and the government to enable greater accountability while not being overly taxing on government officials and making sure, of course, that we respect privacy and confidentiality. I suspect that the government will, for bogus reasons, once again oppose this.

They may state that the PBO provides these documents, that someone else should do their job or that there was an estimate made in 1984 that could be used, if we could find the document. These are very reasonable amendments. We would just look for a partner in the government to enable us to have further accountability metrics, and it doesn't have to be perfectly the language we want. We just want to ensure greater accountability for Canadians, but we know we'll hear reasons such as that there is a projection out there when, in reality, what we're looking for is the actual numbers. Those are two different things.

The continuing conflation and attempt to demagogue is frustrating, but Conservatives will continue to work in the best interests of Canadians.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.

Pat Kelly :

Thank you. I agree with the amendment. I think it's really important to have this kind of reporting on something as important as the decisions the government might make in making exemptions to the applications of its own laws. This is an approach that is new. It was just about this time last year that we passed Bill C-5 , the bill that created the Major Projects Office. Rather than repealing all the regulations that prevent private investors from investing in the Canadian economy, it allowed the government to set up an office and empower it to exempt certain businesses from Canada's laws.

It's not the right approach to basically invite political interference by saying, “We'll let the minister and the government decide in which cases the laws of Canada will apply and in which cases the laws of Canada will not.” Given the government's penchant for this approach.... Rather than getting rid of the red tape that kills jobs and kills production of projects and resource extraction in this country, it has chosen to simply give itself the power to decide when and if it wants to make exemptions to these laws.

In this particular case, this call to report within one year of when this division comes into force and publish a report on “the investments exempted from the application of the Investment Canada Act” is a prudent addition to this bill. It's what we're here to do: to make better laws, to propose solutions and to help the government make better laws when it introduces them and they pass through Parliament. I support this amendment, and I hope that my colleagues will too.

(2025) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

Ryan Turnbull :

It almost sounds like the member opposite is trying to be constructive here, although I have a hard time believing that these suggestions are put forward in good faith, especially when the member opposite talks about cutting red tape. However, every amendment the Conservatives have proposed are adding red tape, which would have a negative impact. In the previous budget we passed through Parliament, the Conservatives were the only party that opposed regulatory sandboxes and limited and narrowed the scope of those, which were specifically designed to reduce red tape for businesses across our economy.

I take issue with something that Mr. Lawrence said, calling the rationale that members opposite provide for their perspectives as “bogus”. I don't think that's parliamentary, but I'll leave it at that. In terms of this particular amendment, we feel that it would be inconsistent with the existing provisions in the Bank Act that protect the confidentiality of the information the government obtains from the financial sector, including foreign banks.

Investment review decisions are made by the Minister of Finance on a case-by-case basis and are unlikely to obtain all the information necessary to implement the proposed reporting requirements that are implied by this amendment. For those reasons, we're opposing the amendment.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Mr. Kelly, go ahead.

Pat Kelly :

I asked to get back in because Mr. Turnbull mentioned the regulatory sandboxes. He may recall that he and his colleagues agreed with the opposition, ultimately, to amend the bill to reduce its scope. If I remember correctly—and I'd have to look up the parliamentary record here—the reduction of the number of rules and laws that the so-called “regulatory sandboxes approach” would take was too broad. It was recognized by most observers and, I think, recognized by the government that they had gone too far. That bill was amended.

This is what this committee is here to do: to make better bills by debating the issues, and to do so just as we're doing tonight in our clause-by-clause review. I thought I should make that point. He acknowledged that he thinks I'm trying to be constructive, trying to come up with ideas here to make this law better. That's what we're doing here tonight.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Shall CPC-8 carry? (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4) (Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to on division) (On clause 21)

The Chair :

We're on CPC-9. Who's speaking on this? Mr. Kelly.

Pat Kelly :

I move the that Bill C-30 , in clause 21, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 15 the following:

30.51 The Bank must,