Finance Committee on Dec. 13th, 2021

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

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

NDP-5 would fit in after clause 4 and before clause 5. I have no amendments to propose for clauses 2 to 4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There are no amendments at this time. We're asking for unanimous consent to group clauses 2 to 4.

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

I assume that government members are supporting clauses 2 to 4. If we had an indication from one other committee member that it is their intent to support them, I would propose that they pass on division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to on division)

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I do have one question, hopefully an amendment from the floor. It's on page 37. I apologize that this wasn't brought to you sooner. On pages 36 and 37, on the consolidated revenue fund, proposed section 41 says:

All money required to do anything in relation to this Act, including all money required by the Minister to administer and enforce this Act or by the Agency, as defined in section 2 of the Canada Revenue Agency Act, to administer and enforce this Act on behalf of the Minister, may, until March 31, 2026, be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. McLean, the legislative clerk says that we should discuss this when we get to clause 18 in the bill.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

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

I want to make sure that, if we get to 10 o'clock and we're disposing of questions to decide clause-by-clause, this would be included in the votes we will hold—in other words, that it be deemed moved. I'm looking for a little clarity on that, because it would be a shame if we got to 10 o'clock and, because it hadn't been moved because we didn't get to the end of the bill, we didn't get to have a vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

If we get to 10 o'clock, we will put all the clauses forward. There will be no amendments at that time.

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

Pardon me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There will be no amendments after 10 o'clock.

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

But will the amendments in the package, including the amendment that the Conservatives brought today, be deemed moved? The original motion is that we will decide all questions at 10 o'clock in order to dispose of clause-by-clause. Does that include amendments in the package, or do we have to get to them in order to move them?

[Philippe Méla]

At 10 o'clock, the question will be put on all the amendments that were received prior to 10 p.m.

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

Okay.