Finance Committee on May 30th, 2022

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

On a point of order, I wish to challenge the ruling of the chair.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

If you are in agreement with the chair's ruling, you vote yes. If you are against the chair's ruling, you vote no.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The decision has been overturned, and the amendment is open for debate by members.

We shall proceed to vote.

Shall—

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

We have hands virtually.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I am sorry. I did not see those hands. I apologize for not looking at the screen.

I have MP Beech, MP Baker and then MP MacDonald.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Jake for bringing this motion forward, as well as Mr. Blaikie, and for all members of Parliament. I look forward to supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

MP Baker.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes, I wanted to echo that.

I had a chance to meet with folks who are advocating for this cause from JDRF. I think it's important that we provide support to people who are struggling with diabetes. We have to make note of the fact that this is something that affects people, in many cases from a very young age and throughout their lives.

Thank you for all the advocacy. I do want to note that, in addition to the members of the committee who've been mentioned, a number of members of the government caucus have been actively advocating on this issue. I think, as Mr. Beech alluded to earlier on, it's good to see MPs on all sides advocating. I look forward to supporting it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

I have MP MacDonald and then MP Albas.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to echo those words as well. I think everybody around this table is extremely pleased and gives much credit to Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Stewart for the work that they've done. I know that in my previous life it was always an issue. We have about a thousand Islanders that have type 1 diabetes. I have two representatives, one in my riding who works for Diabetes Canada and another young man, Brooks Roche, who actually has type 1 diabetes and has been a strong advocate on Prince Edward Island.

I think we're all in this business to do better. I think we find a way to ensure that this amendment passes and we move forward. We know that there have been some relevant investments from this government, such as $35 million in the 2021 budget for research and the framework for diabetes. I think there's more that needs to be done. This is certainly an amendment that I can support and will support. I appreciate all the work that you've done Mr. Stewart and Mr. Blaikie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP MacDonald.

MP Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all members who have espoused their support for this amendment. I particularly would like to thank MP Stewart for championing. He has done a tremendous job in listening to many of the organizations, both here at committee and also off-line. I know his constituents are well served by that. I also want to thank members who spoke up for the need for members of Parliament to assert themselves.

Do you know what? Our system is dedicated to the fact that we come from our ridings and we can make decisions. If members of Parliament want to see changes in this place, we have to stand in our place and say no to the government, or sometimes tell them that we want yes. To those members who stood up today to not necessarily agree with the government and to assert our rights as members of Parliament, I thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Albas.

I think that's it for the speakers.

We will move to the vote on CPC-1.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That will also capture amendment NDP-1.

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division)

Members, there are no amendments submitted for any of clauses 7 to 15 in part I of the bill. Would members give unanimous consent to grouping clauses 7 to 15?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

(Clauses 7 to 15 agreed to on division)

(On clause 16)

On clause 16, there is a Conservative amendment. Members should note that if CPC-2 is adopted, Bloc-1 and NDP-2 cannot be moved as they amend the same line.

MP Lawrence.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have spent extensive time consulting with stakeholders with respect to the charitable sector, and they have incredible frustration with the current status of the law respecting the contributions of charities to non-qualified entities such as NGOs. This situation creates both international and domestic challenges.

When they heard the budget was going to take place in the spirit of Senator Omidvar's private member's bill S-216, they were excited. However, their excitement was quickly dashed by the overly prescriptive nature, and that's what our amendment to clause 16 seeks to fix.

It takes the prescriptive nature of the BIA and turns it into a more reasonable set of circumstances that put the onus on the charities to conduct their business within their charitable scope and also to do so in accountable and transparent ways. What it doesn't do is create overly prescriptive rules that will create a legal fiction or will just stop charitable work altogether.

In short, Mr. Chair, this amendment will allow more good people to do more good work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

I do have a speaking order here. I have MP Ste-Marie and then MP Beech.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Right now, we are talking about CPC‑2, but BQ‑1 and NDP‑2 pertain to the same thing.

Personally, I agree with all three amendments. Obviously, I have a preference for my amendment, which would delete the two lines in subparagraph (iii)—the triple i or the “i‑i‑i”, as Mr. d'Entremont would say in the House. The disbursement would still be subject to the conditions in subparagraphs (i) and (ii). That would be the easiest thing to do, in my view.

If, however, my fellow members prefer CPC‑2, I would obviously be willing to support that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

Members may or may not know that the order is based on when amendments are received. As the clerk receives those amendments, they are kept in whatever order they come in.

I have MP Beech and MP Blaikie.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I had the opportunity to articulate earlier in the House, the government is supportive of the spirit of Bill S-216. I've had the opportunity to work with the senator personally and I thank, actually, all members around the table from all parties for their work to try to make sure we get this right. There is a balance between allowing greater freedom to do better work with less administration and protecting Canada's very generous tax receipting program.

My preference is for NDP-2. Amendment CPC-2 would prevent that, as the chair stated when introducing it, so that would actually have me oppose amendments CPC-2, CPC-3, Bloc-1 and Bloc-2 but support NDP-2. If we got that far, amendments Bloc-3, CPC-4 and NDP-3 are essentially the same and I would support that as well. I believe that strategy is the right way to go. I believe it has the general support of those individuals who have been involved in bringing this to the government's attention in the first place. I believe it respects the spirit of the bill, and that's the way I'll be voting. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Beech.

Now we will hear from MP Blaikie and then MP Lawrence.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

I think we have a number of amendments before us, not just for this clause but also for a few clauses coming up, that will deal with the subject matter of what is currently Bill S-216. My preference is for NDP-2 and I'm confident, given the parliamentary secretary's remarks, that it will pass.

My intention is to vote against the other amendments in the package with the exception of CPC-4, which I take to be a complementary amendment not just to Mr. Lawrence's own amendment here but also to my own. That's how I intend to vote on these items. I think that in doing so we can create or provide a substantial solution to what was clearly a problem with the way the budget implementation act was worded.

I want the committee to know that's how I intend to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

Now we have MP Lawrence.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all members for their constructive comments.

We have had a number of lawyers, experts and constitutional lawyers review this amendment, and they are of the firm belief that this actually instills sufficient controls, transparency and accountability, and actually enhances the ability of the CRA to take corrective action where necessary. Also, it outlines a number of key important issues.

Since the parties—I think rightfully so—have brought up the other related amendments.... I'll just use ours for ease of numbering. We basically have three amendments here—CPC-2, CPC-3 and CPC-4—and I think the numbers for the NDP amendments are similar. Parliamentary Secretary Beech said that he couldn't take CPC-3 if he didn't accept CPC-2. I don't think that's necessarily true because CPC-3 is completely unrelated to CPC-2. If he were to look positively on CPC-3, perhaps we could get some agreement on CPC-2 as well.

I would just put it over to Parliamentary Secretary Beech to see if he would be willing to comment on that. This CPC-3 is absolutely critical as well, Mr. Chair, because it allows for directed giving. Right now, the way the legislation is drafted, you could potentially be offside if you went to the United Way and said to the United Way—or the United Way said to you—we want to give this to the Ukraine fund within the United Way.

If we do not accept amendment CPC-3, we will have significant issues for the charitable sector. There's no partisan angle to this whatsoever. It's just legislation that makes sense, so we would very much like agreement to.... I understand we would all agree to amendment CPC-4, but if we agreed to CPC-3 as well, perhaps we could make a move on the second amendment.