Finance Committee on Dec. 13th, 2021

Evidence of meeting #9 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mclean.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-2

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk

Clerk of the Committee Mr. Alexandre Roger

Trevor McGowan Director General, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Maximilian Baylor Senior Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Benoit Cadieux Director, Special Benefits, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development

December 13th, 2021 / 8:35 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Here's what I'm open to. We have a subamendment to NDP-3 that has already been moved by Mr. McLean, to replace the word “dividends” with “taxable dividends on common equity”. I'm happy to have NDP-3 tabled until 9:30 while the drafters work on a solution, which may well be Mr. McLean's solution.

My understanding is that if the drafters come back with another solution, we'll be able to talk about it and vote on it, but if we don't like that solution or if they don't come up with another solution, we would still be able to have a vote on Mr. McLean's amendment.

If that's the understanding, then I would accept tabling NDP-3 in that way. I would likewise accept the tabling of NDP-4 in that way, if we deem an amendment to have been moved to likewise replace the term “dividends” in NDP-4 with “taxable dividends on common equity” so that, when we're voting on the subamendment that's already been moved by Mr. McLean, we don't create a discrepancy between the two amendments, which are obviously meant to go together.

If we're tabling NDP-3 and NDP-4 on those terms, so that we still get a vote on the subamendment to NDP-3 that Mr. McLean has moved and what I would take to be a consequential amendment to NDP-4, that's fine. If the drafters come up with something that the committee feels is better, then we can proceed with what they feel is better. As I said, maybe we'll have a Christmas miracle and a man in red will show up with a canned amendment.

If not, then we ought to be able to vote on Mr. McLean's amendment. You can consider me to have moved the appropriate motion if that's useful, Mr. Chair, and then we could have a vote on tabling under the conditions I've just described.

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

I have Mr. Blaikie, and then Mr. Chambers.

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

We may have another solution. I'll let the legislative clerk, Philippe, speak to this.

8:40 p.m.

Legislative Clerk

Philippe Méla

I'm not sure I want to propose that solution anymore. What I can tell you is that Isabelle D'Souza is already working on it, so she may be able to provide it to us soon.

8:40 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

In that case, Mr. Chair, I think what I proposed is consistent with Ms. D'Souza's contemporary work. I propose that we get a decision from the committee on the proposal to table NDP-3 and NDP-4, having deemed an amendment moved to NDP-4 consistent with Mr. McLean's amendment to NDP-3 that's already been moved. We can revisit this question at 9:30 and have a vote on these amendments, if we are not presented with an alternative we feel is superior.

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm just following along with the logic of the committee members. Could we clarify what exactly would happen at 9:30, assuming we're in the middle of somebody else's amendment? I think we should all be clear on exactly what will happen at 9:30 if this goes ahead.

8:40 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

If I may, I think there are a couple of ways we could proceed, but my suggestion would be that the committee simply suspend any debate that it may be having at 9:30 to move back to amendments NDP-3 and NDP-4. Provided that those are disposed of before 10 o'clock, then we would return to whatever debate was suspended at 9:30. If we run out of time, then we would proceed to a decision on whatever remaining business there is, including all the amendments in my package.

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

All right, Mr. Blaikie. You could be a clerk. The clerk says you are correct.

Mr. Chambers, do you want to speak to this?

8:40 p.m.

Conservative

Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON

I support Mr. Blaikie's amendment. I do think it's worth noting that we've spent far more time figuring out how to protect publicly traded companies with many resources than we did for low-income seniors, who are being left out in the cold.

I think there is plenty of time to figure out how we can clarify it. Yes, it is unwise to be drafting on the fly—I agree with my honourable colleague Madame Chatel—but any issue here is being brought on by the government itself. It has had ample time since the election was called to convene Parliament, to convene the committee. This is advice the committee provided to the government in the last Parliament, so I think it should be no surprise that those of us who support the amendment are here asking for it again. This should really not be a surprise, so I would support Mr. Blaikie's suggestion that we come back at 9:30, and we can reconvene then.

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca

Mr. Blaikie, I am looking to the members to see if there's agreement to tabling until 9:30.

Okay, there's agreement.

(Amendments allowed to stand)

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

There are no amendments to clauses 2 to 4, so I'm going to ask if there is unanimous consent to group them. Are there any amendments to clauses 2 to 4? Is there any discussion?