Finance Committee on June 4th, 2024

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, shall CPC-30 carry?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

We'd like a recorded vote. We need to know whether Gabriel will support it or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 209 agreed to on division)

On clause 213, we have CPC-31. Does somebody want to move it?

It's withdrawn.

(Clause 213 agreed to on division)

On clause 216, this is CPC-32.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

We'll pull CPC-32 to CPC-34.

(Clause 216 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now on clause 217, this is CPC-34.1.

No, that's also withdrawn.

(Clause 217 agreed to on division)

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Given the way things are going, we'll pull our CPC-35 and CPC-35.1.

(Clause 221 agreed to on division)

(On clause 227)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

On clause 227, this is BQ-3.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm moving this amendment because, under this division, the open banking system framework would be solely under federal jurisdiction. However, that framework would encroach on the jurisdiction of the provinces, which would result in discrimination against financial institutions under provincial jurisdiction. At the very least, the provinces would have to accept the provisions under these clauses.

I request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Ste-Marie, I have a ruling on this.

First, Bill C-69 amends several acts. The bill provides for the coming into force of its sections 213 to 221 and 224, related to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act:

on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

The amendment attempts to subject all clauses of the bill that relate to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to the written consent of all the provinces before their coming into force, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to by the House at second reading.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on pages 773 and 774:

An amendment intended to alter the coming into force clause of a bill, making it conditional, is out of order since it exceeds the scope of the bill....

It attempts to introduce a new question into it.

In the opinion of the chair and for the aforementioned reason, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of this bill; therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

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

Mr. Chair, I think your interpretation is far too restrictive and I will therefore challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

My decision has been challenged. That's not debatable.

Clerk, can you poll the members?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

Shall clause 227 carry?

(Clause 227 agreed to on division)

(On clause 248)

We are on clause 248, and this is amendment NDP-6.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will move this, if I may. It's quite simple.

This budget does contain a positive provision to bring in a right-to-disconnect kind of policy, so that employees can be protected from having their work life impinge upon their private life.

Our amendment would prohibit employers or persons acting on behalf of employers from intimidating, dismissing, penalizing, disciplining or otherwise taking reprisals against employees or threatening to take such actions in relation to right-to-disconnect policies. In other words, if someone makes a complaint upholding their right to disconnect, they don't face workplace reprisals because of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, thank you, MP Davies.

I see MP Ste-Marie's hand up, and I also see PS Turnbull's hand up.

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

Mr. Chair, I think this is a very important amendment. My colleague Mr. Davies' arguments are very good, and I think we must vote unanimously in favour of the proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you very much, MP Ste-Marie.

Go ahead, PS Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, I appreciate this amendment that Mr. Davies has put forward. It's important as a measure to restore work-life balance for many workers in federally regulated industries. The right to disconnect is a contribution to ensuring that there's a right to disconnect from work outside of work hours. We'll be supporting this.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

I see no further hands.

Shall NDP-6 carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 248 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 269)

Members, we are on clause 269, and this is CPC-36.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

The courts struck down as unconstitutional parts of Bill C-69, which we call the “no new pipelines bill”. In standing up for Alberta and our low-carbon and responsible energy sector, we would like to see the Impact Assessment Act repealed altogether.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Hallan.

Okay, I'm looking around.... I will now give my ruling. Bill C-69 amends several acts. The amendment seeks to repeal the Impact Assessment Act in its entirety. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771:

an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since the sections of the Impact Assessment Act being repealed by the amendment are not amended by Bill C-69, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

(Clause 269 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 271, 273, 291 and 292 agreed to on division)

(On clause 321)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we're on clause 321. This is CPC-37.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thanks very much. The Conservatives are pleased to move that.

Traditionally, tax accountants are allowed to go to Tax Court to advise and advocate for their clients. This will allow them, going forward, to continue this practice of representing their clients in Tax Court. It will give the opportunity for individuals who find themselves in Tax Court to be advocated for by the professional of their choice. Oftentimes accountants have an excellent degree of knowledge with respect to these tax situations and have also been following the file, sometimes since inception, and it only makes sense for them to continue this throughout the court and legal process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

MP Ste-Marie, I see your hand up, but this is not debatable, because it's not admissible.

I now give my ruling to MP Lawrence and to the members. Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Tax Court of Canada Act, to provide that “the Court under special circumstances grants leave to the party [to a proceeding who is not an individual] to be represented by a director, officer, employee, member or partner of the party” or by a lawyer in normal circumstances. The amendment seeks to provide for the party to be represented, in normal circumstances, by a tax accountant, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill, as agreed to by the House at second reading.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. For the aforementioned reason, therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to challenge that, because that's actually an incorrect ruling. It's not a new concept, whether you're being represented by a lawyer or a tax professional.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

I have been challenged as to the ruling. Can the clerk poll the members?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

Shall clause 321 carry?

(Clause 321 agreed to on division)

(On clause 326)

Members, now we're at clause 326, and this is NDP-13.