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.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Philippe is going to explain what can be done and what can't be done.
8 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Blaikie and Monsieur Ste-Marie.
The problem is that you can't just set aside an amendment. You have to set aside the whole clause including all the amendments to it, and come back to it at the end. In this case, it would be amendments NDP‑3 and NDP‑4.
8 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you for that technical clarification, Mr. Méla.
So we could proceed in this way, that is to say, reserve clause 1 and the amendments that relate to it, and then come back to it at the end of this meeting when we have found a rewording of amendment NDP‑3, as amended, that better defines what is meant by “dividends”.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Are you requesting someone to draft this? The legislative clerk is asking.
8 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Yes. Perhaps my colleagues Mr. Blaikie and Mr. McLean and the legislative clerk could work on this to come up with a clearer definition.
I see that Mr. Méla is shaking his head.
8 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I am shaking my head to say a vigorous no, because I am not a legislative drafter. You really need a legislative drafter. I see it's 8:03 p.m., and I don't think any legislative drafters are listening. It might be hard to find a legislative drafter available tonight, not to mention the fact that we would also need a legislative translator, a jurilinguist and all the staff that goes with it.
8 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
On that note, I think some colleagues want to speak. I'm not an expert on this, so I'll let them speak and I'll ask questions later.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We have Mr. Poilievre.
He is conferring, so I'll move to Madame Chatel.
December 13th, 2021 / 8 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand that we want to make changes to the amendment as it was proposed. However, you have to understand that each company has different types of shares. Some are fixed income and are linked to pension funds, for example. So you can't have that.
In terms of the common shares, the holders can get dividends, but as Mr. McGowan said, you have to make sure that they are the ultimate shareholders. It's important to note that funds flow from one entity to another. Companies are made up of multiple entities and transfer their funds between them for cash flow, programs and operations through corporate dividends, which are paid on common shares.
So even if we make an amendment like the one proposed by Mr. McLean, which is to make it only about dividends paid on common shares, we will create a big problem for companies that are doing nothing wrong. It's their day‑to‑day operations. They would be asked to repay the wage subsidy because they have the same operations. That makes no sense. I hope that's clear.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I think we're seeing the result of the government trying to ram this legislation through. They shut the place down for six months to call an unnecessary election. Even after that election was over, they took another 60 days to get back to work. Now they're saying we don't have enough time to pass the legislation. They're like the teenager who says, “Mom, how could you expect me to study for the exam in just one night?” Mom says, “Actually, you knew that there was going to be an exam a month ago. You chose to start studying the night before.”
This is the problem the government has created. There are a couple of options to fix it. One is to extend our work on this committee on this bill. We don't have to report back. We could adopt another motion to report the bill back later in the week if the government is not satisfied. Two, we could just pass Mr. Blaikie's amendment.
Either the government will agree to the first option, or we're going to agree to the second one. We will be supporting Mr. Blaikie. If the government is not happy with the rush job the government has forced on the committee, then they will have to find a solution to that problem.
Thank you.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have full support and confidence that the officials appearing here this evening and those at CRA will be able to clarify any vagueness or ambiguity in legislation well before any company chooses whether or not they want to avail themselves of the wage subsidy. Since we are on a go-forward basis, I think this is an incredibly reasonable compromise. It gives people a significant amount of time to think, with their own lawyers and their own advisers, before they avail themselves of the subsidy.
As I said, I believe there is significant time. I have full confidence in our officials to put out an interpretive note to the effect of the discussion here this evening.
Thank you.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
I have just a brief point of order. I apologize; I've been really enjoying the discussion among members, but I came straight from another meeting into this meeting and, with the vote in between, it's been two hours and 10 minutes. Could I ask for a five-minute suspension just for a brief bio break?
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I call the meeting back.
Philippe would like to inform the committee in terms of drafting a new amendment.
8:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Ste-Marie, to my great surprise, the Office of the Law Clerk is actually listening to us.
8:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
8:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I would be possible, depending on the complexity of the request, but you can send the request to whoever was the drafter for your amendment, and they could take it from there and communicate with you if they are able to do it tonight. It is Isabelle D'Souza, if you want to contact her, or Nathalie Caron. Or you can send it to me and I will send it to them—either way.
8:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
There's no guarantee that they can do it tonight. They will bring people in to see how complex the request is. If it's possible, of course they'll do it. Otherwise, it may go till tomorrow.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Boy, things change fast around here.
I'll just address a couple of points that Mr. Poilievre made.
We know that the drafting of these emergency supports because of COVID does happen at the last minute. I don't want anybody who might be listening to think that we're trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. I believe that this is a very good piece of legislation that is trying to get emergency supports to hard-hit industries, companies and individuals.
I will also say that nobody—for sure on our side and, I would bet, around the table—wants any corporation to be able to give out dividends to shareholders while it is collecting any type of public funds like the emergency supports and the Canada emergency wage subsidy. In saying all of that, I do think that it's very dangerous for us to be amending the tax code without legal interpretation and without help. I really caution us in terms of doing this.
It's great that now we have a law clerk who is listening in. I would like to suggest, Mr. Chair, if I can, that maybe we could table this until 9:30, because I think we have a hard stop at 10 o'clock. If we could table this until 9:30, maybe there could be some suggestions sent through to whomever, so that we can come back with something that all of us could perhaps live with or consider. Would that be amenable?
