Finance Committee on June 4th, 2024

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Can we have a recorded division?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, MP Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I was just going to call for a recorded division on this.

I want people to understand what's happening here and the reason that we're revisiting NDP-27.1. It's the provision on the sunset clause, with my amendment to have a sunset clause of two years for the immigration detention provisions of this bill. However, it appears that a mistake was made: The Liberal members did not intend to support this amendment; neither did the Conservatives, so what is required is a unanimous consent motion for us to revisit this, and this is what we're doing.

The NDP—and I won't speak for the Bloc, but I know that we share the same views on this matter—want to see a two-year sunset clause. However, if we did not provide unanimous consent to revisit this, then the Liberals and Conservatives would join, in a coalition fashion, to defeat the entire amended section on the sunset clause, which we do not want.

I want to have the opportunity to then move another amendment under NDP-28 that changes the sunset clause to five years instead of two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Kwan.

On that, members, we go to a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Okay, so now, because it was defeated, we can go to NDP-28. MP Davies, you will have to move it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

It's so moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Davies has moved that, and there is a hand up.

Go ahead, MP Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

NDP-28 is an amendment to change the sunset clause to five years with no renewal. Seeing as how NDP-27.1—we wanted to see a sunset clause of two years with no renewal—was just defeated, we now are moving forward with another suggestion, which is a sunset clause of five years with no renewal.

I hope committee members will support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Kwan.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 441 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 445)

Members, we are now at clause 445, and this is BQ-4.

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

Mr. Chair, allow me to move amendment BQ‑4.

It concerns the annual reports of banks. We want more transparency. The object of amendment BQ‑5, which will be moved in a moment, is to compel the disclosure of assets held in tax havens, and that of amendment BQ‑4, in the spirit of green finance, is disclosure of investments made by corporations in entities that produce fossil fuels. We therefore want to increase transparency regarding hydrocarbon investments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Now I give you my ruling. Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Trust and Loan Companies Act, to provide that “the directors of a company of a prescribed class must make available...prescribed information respecting diversity among directors and members of senior management”. The amendment seeks to add an obligation to disclose information respecting the company’s investments in entities that produce fossil fuels, 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, 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, with all due respect, your analysis is far too narrow, and I challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

My ruling has been challenged.

Clerk, poll the members.

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

Thank you.

Now we are at BQ-5.

MP Ste-Marie, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you will recall, before the 2008 financial crisis, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions required that banks disclose the assets they held in tax havens and report the amount of tax that they thus avoided paying in Canada. That requirement was lifted as a result of the crisis. The purpose of this amendment would therefore be to restore the practice so that banks have an obligation to disclose in their annual reports the dollar amounts of their investments in tax havens.

I hope this will carry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

I now give you my ruling on this one. Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Trust and Loan Companies Act, to provide that “the directors of a company of a prescribed class must make available...prescribed information respecting diversity among directors and members of senior management”. The amendment seeks to add an obligation to disclose information respecting the company’s investments in countries recognized as tax havens, 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, and for the aforementioned reason, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm just going to interject here, MP Ste-Marie. The bells are ringing. We need unanimous consent to continue.

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

You have it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have unanimous consent to continue.

Go ahead. You heard my ruling, MP Ste-Marie.

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

Mr. Chair, the concept of tax havens isn't exactly new to Bay Street banks. So I'm going to challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

My ruling has been challenged.

Clerk, could you could poll the members?

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

(Clause 445 agreed to on division)

(On clause 461)

Members, we have jumped to clause 461.

This is NDP-29.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would like to move this, Mr. Chair. It's our last amendment.

In brief, this amendment would add a requirement that:

In making regulations under [the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act] that relate to any authorization or class of authorizations for supervised consumption or drug checking services, the Governor in Council must take into account the need to improve the availability and accessibility of those services, without increasing the administrative burden on service providers and operators, in order to increase the number of lives those services [have been proved to] save.

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

I see a hand up.

PS Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I would like to thank Don and the NDP for proposing this amendment. Supervised consumption and drug-checking services help to save lives. There's no doubt. They're an important, evidence-based part of Canada's comprehensive public health response to addressing substance use-related harms in the overdose crisis.

While the goal of this measure and proposed new regulatory schemes is absolutely to improve the availability and accessibility of supervised consumption and drug-checking services across Canada, it is also the government's intent to maintain strict controls that are consistent with the public health and public safety objectives of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We believe the balance between these two pieces is really important to get right, and we believe that this measure as drafted, i.e., the actual clause 461, properly reflects that balance. We don't want to tamper with that.

We'll be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Turnbull.

Is there anyone else? No?

I apologize, MP Ste-Marie. I didn't see that your hand was up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I unfortunately haven't had time to discuss the proposed amendment in any depth. We haven't brought in any witnesses or experts who could explain matters to us. I'm therefore reluctant to support this amendment.

If, at other meetings on this bill, we had heard from witnesses or experts who could have persuaded us, I would have been able to hear what they had to say, but I can't support the amendment at this stage.