Evidence of meeting #147 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence.
There is a ruling.
Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing refundable tax credits for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying properties by including equipment used for helium production and would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the tax credit provided in the bill to a new category of qualifying property, which would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Can I challenge the chair?
No, I'm not going to challenge it, Peter. We're getting along these days. Why would I ruin that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you for that, Phil.
I'm going have to do it again. We are on CPC-2 now.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I'll move and motivate that if that's okay, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I'm going to say a couple of words on the record. I won't take long.
Our allies around the world are calling for our natural gas, and natural gas, given certain alternatives, can actually dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 emissions. I would note that the People's Republic of China is a heavy user of coal. If they were to, for example, switch to natural gas, we would reduce tremendously—up to 50% of the emissions. In fact, by having the world switch from coal to natural gas, we would more than eliminate all the emissions that are produced here in Canada.
For those reasons, we would move this to include natural gas, as we believe it is a valuable transitional fuel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence.
I do have a ruling.
Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing refundable tax credits for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying properties by including equipment used for natural gas production, which would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the tax credit provided in the bill to a new category of qualifying property, which would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Next is CPC-3.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I will move and motivate that, if that's agreeable to the chair.
This is related to both CPC-3 and CPC-4. It's for the inclusion of uranium and nuclear activities within the credit. Conservatives believe that nuclear is critical to our fight against climate change and also critical to helping us with our productivity issues. Nuclear has provided clean, emissions-free power with a high safety rate when done properly, which will provide affordable, clean energy for generations to come.
For that reason, we believe this amendment makes sense and will help both grow our economy and fight climate change.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence.
There is a ruling from the chair.
Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing a refundable tax credit for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying minerals activities by including a conversion or fuel fabrication to those activities, which would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the tax credit provided in the bill to a new category of qualifying mineral activities, which would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Members, shall clause 38 carry?
(Clause 38 agreed to on division)
(On clause 80)
Liberal
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
We will move CPC-4 for the reasons stated.
Conservatives continue to be strong proponents of the nuclear industry. We see this amendment as a significant desistance to the nuclear industry. It might be added that numerous stakeholders within the nuclear industry are big proponents and supporters of this. Certainly, even my predecessor Ms. Kim Rudd—whom we've unfortunately lost—was a huge supporter of the nuclear industry from the Liberal Party.
I would encourage our members to vote for this as a way of supporting the nuclear industry to help grow our economy and fight climate change.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence. There is a ruling from the chair.
Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing a refundable tax credit for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying materials by including uranium, which would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the tax credit provided in the bill to a new category of qualifying material, which would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
We are now on CPC-5.
MP Chambers, would you like to move this?
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Yes, please, Mr. Chair.
Colleagues, notice was provided for this previously. The government has opened the door to publicly disclosing which companies or corporations take advantage of the investment tax credits. There's really no reason that we should be limiting transparency to investment tax credits. Any company that receives a tax preference from the Government of Canada, whether that's a tax credit, deduction or write-off, should be transparent if it's a corporation.
That was the genesis for this amendment. I respect that it is a much broader definition of what is proposed, but that was the reason behind the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Chambers.
I'll now give my ruling.
Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Income Tax Act, to authorize the minister to make available to public taxpayers information relating to claims or receipts of a clean economy tax credit. The amendment seeks to expand this authorization to any tax credit.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to 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, by expanding the authorization, the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Chair, I interpret the situation differently and therefore wish to challenge your ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, as you know, a challenge is not debatable.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
Is there any further debate?
Liberal
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chambers, you submitted this amendment, and I'm eager to hear you explain it once again. It seems to me we want as much transparency as possible. We need to know what company received what tax credit. We have nothing to hide.
I think this is an extremely important amendment, and I invite all my colleagues to vote for it since it will require businesses to be more transparent.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the support of colleagues to move this to the floor.
You'll also note that the current legislation says “may” and not “shall”. That decision is left to the discretion of the minister, but I believe we should, in the interest of transparency, provide taxpayers with additional information when corporations have received tax preferences.
During the wage subsidy, we listed the corporations that had taken advantage of the wage subsidy. This is just good, transparent practice for those corporations that receive tax credits or deductions. I think, in the future, there will be good legislation to consider all preferences by the government, whether that's a write-off, a tax credit or a deduction. At least in this instance, we can take the same spirit of transparency with the investment tax credits and put it to other examples, as long as it's a corporate entity.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
That's it for the members.
Shall CPC-5 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 80 agreed to on division)
(On clause 113)
