Bloggers note: C-29 received Royal Assent
His Excellency the Governor General of Canada having come and being seated on the Throne, and the House of Commons having been summoned, and being come with their Deputy Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give the Royal Assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Bill C-2, Chapter 11, 2016);
A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures (Bill C-29, Chapter 12, 2016);
see Notes below...
House Government Bill
42nd Parliament, 1st Session
December 3, 2015 - Present
C-29
A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures
Short Title Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2
Last Stage Completed Royal Assent (2016-12-15)
Progress: 
Status of the Bill
Additional Information
About this Bill
Show Details Hide Details
- House of Commons
- First Reading
- Introduction and First Reading2016-10-25
- Second Reading
- Second Reading and Referral to Committee2016-11-15
- Report Stage
- Concurrence at Report Stage2016-12-05
- Third Reading
- Third Reading2016-12-06
- Senate
- First Reading
- First Reading2016-12-07
- Second Reading
- Second Reading2016-12-08
- Referral to Committee2016-12-08
- Committee
- Committee Report Presented with an Amendment
- Consideration of Committee Report
- Committee Report Adopted2016-12-13
- Third Reading
- Third Reading2016-12-13
- Messages
- Consideration of Messages between the Senate and the House of Commons
- Message Sent to the House of Commons
- Consideration of Senate Amendments
- Concurrence in Senate Amendments
- Senate
- Royal Assent
- Royal Assent
Notes:
see also
The Finance Minister said he has instructed the government’s representative in the Senate, Peter Harder, to introduce an amendment that would remove the banking sector provisions. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/morneau-pulls-bank-act-changes-from-budget-bill-after-objections-from-quebec-senate/article33303437/
ALSO
see what transpired Clic link and find ....the following in its entirety
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/421/Debates/087db_2016-12-13-e.htm?Language=E
Hon. Larry W. Smith moved the adoption of the report.
He said: Honourable senators, Bill C-29 was introduced in the House of Commons on October 25, 2016. It is "Budget Implementation Act 216, No. 2." I want to explain briefly what transpired in our committee meeting this Monday, December 12, 2016.
We had a prominent legal expert from Quebec, Mr. Yves Lauzon, who was part of the team that successfully challenged the Bank of Montreal at the Supreme Court level in a case to support Quebec citizens. What we learned was that the provincial laws and federal laws can co-exist without the need for additional legislation. Mr. Lauzon explained that Part 4, Division 5, clause 627.03, would remove a citizen's right to seek remedy and remove the right to use a class action suit to seek resolution. A citizen who, for example, is charged an arbitrary fee of $50 has little incentive to enter into a legal battle with a large bank. However, if a group of citizens can address the wrongdoing with a class action suit, the case can be reviewed in a judicial process.
So why was the clause added to Bill C-29 that would prevent consumer protection laws from protecting citizens? If you check the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying Canada's website, you would find that under "Banks," several banks, including the BMO and RBC, lobbied the government a total of 294 times in the last year. The big banks lobbied the government, which resulted in a section of Bill C-29 that favoured big banks over citizens. That is what your elected officials in the other place voted in support of.
The Senate exercised its rights and exposed the issue in committee and at second reading. Of course, Senator Baker thanked the individuals who took part in this activity, which was a very positive outcome.
The members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance hear testimony so that they can alert senators in this chamber when there are issues with legislation. This is not a partisan issue. As in Bill C-2, senators need to represent their provinces and the citizens of Canada.
I have a quick referral to Bill C-2 which we'll vote on later today. The objective of the committee was to try to address the income group between $45,000 and $90,000 that was outlined by the Prime Minister and help these people, which our amendment tried to cover. I do understand mathematics and how tax laws work. The issue here is not that the rules didn't give us the ability to do so. The issue is that we have to find a way of helping people, namely, 7.4 million Canadians.
We are a chamber of sober second thought, and citizens who could not care less about politics and political platforms count on someone to read the legislation and assess whether it serves the interest of Canadians. We are, simply stated, the quality control group that tries to make legislation better.
In order to study Bill C-29, the committee held five hearings with 19 witnesses. As a result of those hearings, we have identified another major issue in Part 1 at clause 44. This section deals with a change to the small business deductions in section 125 of the Income Tax Act. You have already heard that the Income Tax Act needs to be simplified, yet Bill C-29 adds another 10 pages to the act.
For those who wish to review the section further, clause 44 begins on page 50 and continues on to page 60 of Bill C-29.
Mr. Kim Moody, a tax specialist from the Canadian Tax Advisory, testified before the committee and stated:
Because of the new breadth and depth of the amendments, many may no longer qualify for the small business deduction.
In Mr. Moody's opinion:
Another significant issue with clause 44 is the coming-into-force date. The changes will be applied retroactively to the 2016 taxation year. This puts small business owners and doctors, who we were actually dealing with and who came to testify in front of us, in a difficult situation as they will have operated for a year under different laws and are unable to adjust quickly to the new criteria.
Honourable colleagues, our committee has heard from many witnesses in the health profession area who are prime examples of how clause 44 and the changes to small business deductions will result in unintended consequences. A clause of a bill can easily be removed; it can be redrafted and improved before coming into force. This is not a measure of confidence; it is a matter of diligence in the work we have before us.
I urge you to consider Bill C-29 carefully, as the intent is to serve Canada to the best of our ability.
Hon. André Pratte: Your Honour, if Bill C-29 becomes law, it will be quite different from the bill tabled in this chamber last week. That is a tribute to sober second thought and to the Senate of Canada. .....
goes on and on CLICK on the link above this article
On November 22, 2016, the following motion was adopted by the Senate:
That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, introduced in the House of Commons on October 25, 2016, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;
That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to meet for the purposes of its study of the subject matter of Bill C-29 even though the Senate may then be sitting, with the application of rule 12-18(1) being suspended in relation thereto;
That, in addition, and notwithstanding any normal practice:
1. The following committees be separately authorized to examine the subject matter of the following elements contained in Bill C-29 in advance of it coming before the Senate:
(a) the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: those elements contained in Divisions 1 and 2 of Part 4; and
(b) the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce: those elements contained in Divisions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Part 4;
2. The various committees listed in point one that are authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill C-29 be authorized to meet for the purposes of their studies of those elements even though the Senate may then be sitting, with the application of rule 12-18(1) being suspended in relation thereto;
3. The various committees listed in point one that are authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill C-29 submit their final reports to the Senate no later than December 6, 2016;
4. As the reports from the various committees authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill C-29 are tabled in the Senate, they be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting; and
5. The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be simultaneously authorized to take any reports tabled under point four into consideration during its study of the subject matter of all of Bill C-29.
That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, introduced in the House of Commons on October 25, 2016, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;
That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to meet for the purposes of its study of the subject matter of Bill C-29 even though the Senate may then be sitting, with the application of rule 12-18(1) being suspended in relation thereto;
That, in addition, and notwithstanding any normal practice:
1. The following committees be separately authorized to examine the subject matter of the following elements contained in Bill C-29 in advance of it coming before the Senate:
(a) the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: those elements contained in Divisions 1 and 2 of Part 4; and
(b) the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce: those elements contained in Divisions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Part 4;
2. The various committees listed in point one that are authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill C-29 be authorized to meet for the purposes of their studies of those elements even though the Senate may then be sitting, with the application of rule 12-18(1) being suspended in relation thereto;
3. The various committees listed in point one that are authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill C-29 submit their final reports to the Senate no later than December 6, 2016;
4. As the reports from the various committees authorized to examine the subject matter of particular elements of Bill C-29 are tabled in the Senate, they be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting; and
5. The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be simultaneously authorized to take any reports tabled under point four into consideration during its study of the subject matter of all of Bill C-29.
see also
The Finance Minister said he has instructed the government’s representative in the Senate, Peter Harder, to introduce an amendment that would remove the banking sector provisions. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/morneau-pulls-bank-act-changes-from-budget-bill-after-objections-from-quebec-senate/article33303437/
ALSO
see what transpired Clic link and find ....the following in its entirety
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/421/Debates/087db_2016-12-13-e.htm?Language=E
Budget Implementation Bill, 2016, No. 2
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance (Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, with an amendment), presented in the Senate on December 12, 2016.Eleventh Report of National Finance Committee Adopted
Hon. Larry W. Smith moved the adoption of the report.
He said: Honourable senators, Bill C-29 was introduced in the House of Commons on October 25, 2016. It is "Budget Implementation Act 216, No. 2." I want to explain briefly what transpired in our committee meeting this Monday, December 12, 2016.
We had a prominent legal expert from Quebec, Mr. Yves Lauzon, who was part of the team that successfully challenged the Bank of Montreal at the Supreme Court level in a case to support Quebec citizens. What we learned was that the provincial laws and federal laws can co-exist without the need for additional legislation. Mr. Lauzon explained that Part 4, Division 5, clause 627.03, would remove a citizen's right to seek remedy and remove the right to use a class action suit to seek resolution. A citizen who, for example, is charged an arbitrary fee of $50 has little incentive to enter into a legal battle with a large bank. However, if a group of citizens can address the wrongdoing with a class action suit, the case can be reviewed in a judicial process.
So why was the clause added to Bill C-29 that would prevent consumer protection laws from protecting citizens? If you check the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying Canada's website, you would find that under "Banks," several banks, including the BMO and RBC, lobbied the government a total of 294 times in the last year. The big banks lobbied the government, which resulted in a section of Bill C-29 that favoured big banks over citizens. That is what your elected officials in the other place voted in support of.
The Senate exercised its rights and exposed the issue in committee and at second reading. Of course, Senator Baker thanked the individuals who took part in this activity, which was a very positive outcome.
The members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance hear testimony so that they can alert senators in this chamber when there are issues with legislation. This is not a partisan issue. As in Bill C-2, senators need to represent their provinces and the citizens of Canada.
I have a quick referral to Bill C-2 which we'll vote on later today. The objective of the committee was to try to address the income group between $45,000 and $90,000 that was outlined by the Prime Minister and help these people, which our amendment tried to cover. I do understand mathematics and how tax laws work. The issue here is not that the rules didn't give us the ability to do so. The issue is that we have to find a way of helping people, namely, 7.4 million Canadians.
We are a chamber of sober second thought, and citizens who could not care less about politics and political platforms count on someone to read the legislation and assess whether it serves the interest of Canadians. We are, simply stated, the quality control group that tries to make legislation better.
In order to study Bill C-29, the committee held five hearings with 19 witnesses. As a result of those hearings, we have identified another major issue in Part 1 at clause 44. This section deals with a change to the small business deductions in section 125 of the Income Tax Act. You have already heard that the Income Tax Act needs to be simplified, yet Bill C-29 adds another 10 pages to the act.
For those who wish to review the section further, clause 44 begins on page 50 and continues on to page 60 of Bill C-29.
Mr. Kim Moody, a tax specialist from the Canadian Tax Advisory, testified before the committee and stated:
The proposals are very far-reaching and apply to many routine situations, where . . . they should not. . . . and likely have unintended consequences.Mr. Moody also stated that the current system is "complex." He went on to say: "However, the amendments make such rules horrifically complex."
Because of the new breadth and depth of the amendments, many may no longer qualify for the small business deduction.
In Mr. Moody's opinion:
This new . . . legislation, without a doubt, is within the top 5 in complexity.The average small business owners will not have the capacity that large corporations can afford to manage this level of complexity.
Another significant issue with clause 44 is the coming-into-force date. The changes will be applied retroactively to the 2016 taxation year. This puts small business owners and doctors, who we were actually dealing with and who came to testify in front of us, in a difficult situation as they will have operated for a year under different laws and are unable to adjust quickly to the new criteria.
Honourable colleagues, our committee has heard from many witnesses in the health profession area who are prime examples of how clause 44 and the changes to small business deductions will result in unintended consequences. A clause of a bill can easily be removed; it can be redrafted and improved before coming into force. This is not a measure of confidence; it is a matter of diligence in the work we have before us.
I urge you to consider Bill C-29 carefully, as the intent is to serve Canada to the best of our ability.
Hon. André Pratte: Your Honour, if Bill C-29 becomes law, it will be quite different from the bill tabled in this chamber last week. That is a tribute to sober second thought and to the Senate of Canada. .....
goes on and on CLICK on the link above this article
No comments:
Post a Comment