Evidence of meeting #62 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Trevor McGowan  Acting Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Glenn Campbell  Director, Financial Institutions, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Jean-François Girard  Senior Project Leader, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Eleanor Ryan  Senior Chief, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Suzie Cadieux

5:15 p.m.

Acting Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Trevor McGowan

That was prior to last Thursday's hearing, or whenever that was, and so it's not an update on what has happened, but rather we've had our ongoing consultations and we still believe that the tax consequences arising from the bill are correct, certainly from a tax policy perspective.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Okay, and obviously with regard to the modelling you've done, it's well understood that because these doctors are being paid through the public system, it's quite different from the private system, in which if there were an increase in inflation or cost, they would simply pass it on to the consumer. In this case, the consumer is all of us through the provincial governments.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Greene or Mr. McGowan.

5:15 p.m.

Acting Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Trevor McGowan

That observation is correct. Of course, with a law firm, you can change your billing rates, but it's a different type of negotiation with the provision of medical services. It's not, as in the the law firm example, where they hand you a bill at the end of the day. That is, of course, different.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Well, I am just acknowledging the differences.

Thank you.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

For clause 44, there will be a recorded vote.

(Clause 44 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There are no amendments from clauses 45 to 60.

(Clauses 45 to 60 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 61)

We have amendment NDP-2.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Thank you.

Clearly, this measure seeks to achieve compliance with the OECD's recommendation on country-by-country evaluation. The recommendation calls on large multinationals with revenue of more than €750 million a year to prepare an annual report that would include more information about their taxes, revenue, and assets in each country where they operate.

However, even though the OECD has given us guidance, that does not stop us from going farther. Knowing that the €750-million threshold excludes 85% to 90% of all multinational companies and would apply to only a few dozen companies in Canada, we want to lower the revenue threshold at which reporting would be required from €750 million to €60 million.

We want to lower the threshold in order to increase the level of oversight and transparency.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

The amendment is in order.

What dollars are you talking about: $60 million U.S., $60 million Canadian, or what?

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

It was euros actually, because the original one was euros.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay, 60 million euros.

All right, it's open for discussion. Is there any further discussion on NDP-2 amendment?

There is no discussion.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 61 agreed to on division)

There are no amendments from clauses 62 to 116.

(Clauses 62 to 116 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 117)

We have amendment BQ-2.

Mr. Ste-Marie.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC

Mr. Chair—

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Yes.

5:20 p.m.

Steve MacKinnon

—if we have questions for the experts, should we hear the amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois or should we put our questions to the officials first?

November 28th, 2016 / 5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We can go either way for that matter. I think the amendment is on the floor. We'll deal with it.

Okay, put the amendment on the floor, Mr. Ste-Marie.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC

Okay.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

There's no ruling on this one, so you can ask questions.

Put the amendment on the floor, Mr. Ste-Marie.

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask permission to present Bloc Québécois amendments 2 and 3 jointly. BQ-2 concerns clause 117 and BQ-3 pertains to clause 131, but the two amendments are related.

Would that be okay?

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC

Yes.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

That's fine.

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Thank you very much.

The banks have always felt that the Civil Code of Quebec and the Consumer Protection Act were overly favourable towards average citizens. They even went all the way to the Supreme Court to keep from having to disclose their hidden fees and to be able to charge customers however much they want without even telling them.

Unfortunately for them, in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that they had to comply with Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, in the Marcotte decision. In 2012, the Harper government gave the banks precedence over all else in the preamble of the Bank Act.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Ste-Marie, if I could get you to hold for a minute so the officials who are coming to the table will be able to hear your arguments, and then we won't have to repeat them.

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Very good. I don't have to start over, then?

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC

No.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We'll give the officials a chance to settle in.

Welcome, Mr. Girard, Mr. Campbell, and Ms. Ryan.

Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

As I was saying, in 2012, the Harper government gave the banks precedence over everything in the preamble of the Bank Act. The government thought it could shield the banks from the requirements of Quebec's legislation. The Supreme Court, however, wasn't convinced.

Now the government is again trying to get around the court's decision, this time through Bill C-29. It is trying to use the back door to encroach upon civil law, a 400-year-old legal system protected under the Constitution, and is depriving consumers of their rights in the process. This is very serious.

The government can expect to face another legal battle, like the one that resulted in the Marcotte decision, and consumers will be in for years of uncertainty, not knowing which legislation is applicable.

If Bill C-29 is passed in its current form, without our amendments, the banks will be able to do what they want. If a customer is swindled, they will no longer have any real recourse. Gone are the days of customers being able to take advantage of the free and simple complaint mechanism available through Quebec's office of consumer protection. The only place bank customers will have to turn is the office of the banking ombudsman, an organization funded by the banks.

Clause 131 of Bill C-29 as well as the English version of clause 117 raise serious constitutional questions. They set consumer rights back and open the door to legal challenges, while encroaching upon civil law, a coherent legal system that has existed in Quebec for more than 400 years.

For all those reasons, I urge you to adopt Bloc Québécois amendments BQ-2 and BQ-3. I'd also like to hear the officials' views on these amendments, if I could.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.