FINA Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Finance met at 3:34 p.m. this day, in Room 268, La Promenade Building, the Chair, James Rajotte, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive carried severally.

Clause 13 carried on division.

“(B) $37,500, and”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

Clause 14 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 15 to 30 inclusive carried severally.

Clause 31 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 1.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clause 32 which is therefore also adopted.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 33 to 53 inclusive carried severally.

Clause 54 carried on division.

Clause 55 carried.

Clause 56 carried.

Clause 57 carried on division.

Clause 58 carried.

On Clause 59,

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following three (3) amendments which are therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 59, be amended by deleting lines 1 and 2 on page 90.

That Bill C-4, in Clause 59, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 90 with the following:

“subsequent taxation years.”

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Louis Plamondon for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 59, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 89 with the following:

“(a.1) 14.9999% of the net cost to the individual (or”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also negatived:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 59, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 89 with the following:

“(a.1) 14.9998% of the net cost to the individual (or”

After debate, Clause 59 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 60 to 72 inclusive carried severally.

After debate, Clause 73 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 74 to 79 inclusive carried severally.

Clause 80 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

After debate, Clause 81 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 82 to 99 inclusive carried severally.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 100 to 102 inclusive carried severally on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 103 to 105 inclusive carried severally.

Clause 106 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 107 to 112 inclusive carried severally.

After debate, Clause 113 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 114 and 115 carried severally.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 116 to 118 inclusive carried severally on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 119 to 123 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 124,

“(2) The portion of section 10 before paragraph (b), enacted by subsection (1), is deemed to have come into force on December 17, 1990.

(3) Paragraph 10(b), enacted by subsection (1), is deemed to have come into force on March 21, 2013.”

The question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 124 carried on division.

Clause 125 carried on division.

On Clause 126,

“rate for

(a) the year 2015 is 1.88%; and

(b) the year 2016 is 1.88% or a lower rate set by the Commission.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 126 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 127 to 129 inclusive carried severally on division.

Clause 130 carried.

On Clause 131,

“(3) The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a report setting out

(a) in all cases,

(i) the reasons to prefer the rate recommended by the Minister, and

(ii) an analysis of the impacts of the difference between the rate suggested by the Commission, if any, and the rate recommended by the Minister on the projected revenues and on the surplus or deficit position of the Employment Insurance Operating Account for each of the next five years, as well as on the long term sustainability of that account; and

(b) in the case of a premium set under paragraph (1)(a), the reasons for which the Minister considers the substitution to be in the public interest.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 131 carried on division.

Clause 132 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 133 to 134 inclusive carried severally on division.

After debate, Clause 135 carried.

After debate, Clause 136 carried on division.

Clause 137 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 138 to 156 inclusive carried severally on division.

After debate, Clause 157 carried.

Clause 158 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 159 to 166 inclusive carried severally on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 167 to 175 inclusive carried severally.

At 4:46 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:57 p.m., the sitting resumed.

On Clause 176,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 176, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 10 on page 176.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following four (4) amendments which are therefore also negatived:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 176, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 176 with the following:

“activity altered, and includes

(i) a potential hazard or condition or a future activity that could reasonably be expected to cause any injury or illness, whether or not the injury or illness occurs immediately after the exposure to the hazard, condition or activity,

(ii) any exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to result in a chronic illness, in disease or in damage to the reproductive system, and

(iii) a hazard or condition described in subparagraph (i) that results from physical or mental fatigue, drugs, alcohol, traumatic shock or another temporary condition that affects a person's behaviour;”

That Bill C-4, in Clause 176, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 176 with the following:

“activity altered, and includes

(i) a potential hazard or condition or a future activity that could reasonably be expected to cause any injury or illness, whether or not the injury or illness occurs immediately after the exposure to the hazard, condition or activity,

(ii) any exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to result in a chronic illness, in disease or in damage to the reproductive system, and

(iii) a hazard or condition described in subparagraph (i) that results from physical or mental fatigue, drugs, alcohol, acute or chronic shock or another temporary condition that affects a person's behaviour;”

That Bill C-4, in Clause 176, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 176 the following:

“(3) Subsection 122(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“health”, in relation to work, refers not only to the absence of disease or infirmity, but includes the state of physical and mental well-being that is directly related to safety and occupational hygiene in the work place.”

“176. (1) The definitions “health and safety officer” and “regional health and safety officer” in subsection 122(1) of the Canada Labour Code are replaced by the following:

“health and safety officer” means an employee of the federal public administration who is designated as a health and safety officer under section 140;

“regional health and safety officer” means an employee of a province or provincial body who is designated as a regional health and safety officer under section 140;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

““danger” means any existing or potential hazard, condition or activity that could reasonably be expected to be an imminent or genuine threat to the life or”

Clause 176 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 177,

“every employee and at every place directed by the Minister”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 177 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 178 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 179 and 180 which are therefore also adopted.

On Clause 181,

“recommendations, if any. In the event that the decision of the members of the work place committee is not unanimous, the report shall also include the results and recommendations of the dissenting committee members.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 181 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 182,

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 182 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 183 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 184 to 189 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

On Clause 190,

“delegate to an employee or a class of employees with formal training or equivalent experience in occupational health and safety any of the powers, duties or functions”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 190 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 191 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 192 to 195 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

After debate, Clause 196 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 197,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 197, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 22 on page 193 with the following:

“by the Minister under this Part or a decision by the Minister not to proceed with an investigation pursuant to subsection 129(1) may appeal the direction or the decision in writing to an appeals officer within 30 days after the date of the direction or decision being”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 197 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 198 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 199 to 203 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

After debate, Clause 204 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 205 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

After debate, Clause 206 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 207 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 208 to 210 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

Clause 211 carried.

On Clause 212,

“(2) Section 71 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) The electronic administration or enforcement of the Acts, programs and activities referred to in paragraphs 70.1(a) to (e), (g) and (h), the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act must be subject to a visual inspection by a person authorized by the Minister, the Minister of Labour or the Commission, as the case may be.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 212 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 213 and 214 carried severally.

Clause 215 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 216 and 217 which are therefore also adopted.

Clause 218 carried.

Clause 219 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 220 to 238 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

On Clause 239,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 239, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 210 the following:

““buffer zone” means an area of land extending two kilometres inward from the outer perimeter of the Dominion Coal Blocks where development is not allowed in order to protect and preserve the ecological integrity of the habitat adjacent to that land.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 239 carried on division.

Clause 240 carried on division.

On Clause 241,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 241, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 210 the following:

“(2) For greater certainty, no exercise of a power under 241(1), including to sell or dispose of the Dominion Coal Blocks or any interest in them, may cause negative environmental impacts to occur within the Flathead River watershed.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 241 carried on division.

On Clause 242,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 242, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 210 with the following:

“priate, the Minister may, following consultation with the public and relevant stakeholders, dispose of the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following three (3) amendments which are therefore also negatived:

“(1.1) Despite subsection (1), the Minister shall not allow the development of any land within the buffer zone.”

That Bill C-4, in Clause 242, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 211 with the following:

“of the Governor in Council if the easement does not cause negative environmental impacts to occur within the Flathead River watershed.”

That Bill C-4, in Clause 242, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 211 the following:

“(5) Before disposing of the Dominion Coal Blocks, or any part of the Dominion Coal Blocks or any interest in them, the Minister must, in consultation with the Province of British Columbia, First Nations of British Columbia and conservation organizations, develop a conservation management plan in respect of the Dominion Coal Blocks that shall provide for the following matters:

(a) a prohibition on mining or oil and gas development within the portion of the Dominion Coal Blocks that overlaps the Flathead watershed, in accordance with the terms described in the Flathead Watershed Area Conservation Act, SBC 2011, c. 20, whether or not that Act remains in force;

(b) a prohibition on any development that would result in an increased loading of selenium, cadmium, nitrate, or sulphites in the Elk River;

(c) the conservation of wildlife connectivity within the Dominion Coal Blocks; and

(d) the effective protection of the habitat of species, especially species at risk, within both federal and provincial jurisdiction.

(6) Before any disposition is made, the Minister must ensure that a restrictive covenant has been registered against the land in order to protect and preserve the ecological integrity of the land according to the terms set out in subsection (5).”

“(5) Within 10 days of a disposition under section 241 or 242, the Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a report outlining the appraised value of any lands or interest in lands disposed of, the disposition price and the steps that have been taken to ensure the preservation of sensitive environmental areas as well as continued recreational access to the area.”

The question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“(5) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

Clause 242 carried on division.

Clause 243 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 244 to 248 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

After debate, Clause 249 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 250 to 255 inclusive carried severally on division.

On Clause 256,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 256, be amended by deleting lines 18 to 21 on page 214.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 256 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 257 to 269 inclusive carried severally on division.

At 6:03 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 6:40 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Clause 270 carried.

After debate, Clause 271 carried.

After debate, Clause 272 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 273 to 275 inclusive carried.

On Clause 276,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 276, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 217 with the following:

“in Council on the advice of the Veterans Ombudsman and any number of temporary”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 276 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 277,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 277, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 218 with the following:

“three of the 12 directors are citizens of Canada who reside outside”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 11.

Clause 277 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 278 to 281 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 282,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 282, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 220 with the following:

“section 8 and to ensure that present and future generations of the people of the Northwest Territories benefit from on-going economic development, including that resulting from the development of non-renewable resources.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following two (2) amendments which are therefore also negatived:

“(b) meets the criteria set out in section 8.1.

8.1 The criteria for determining the projects in respect of which contributions may be provided shall be the degree to which those projects mitigate any of the following existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on communities in the Northwest Territories arising from the Mackenzie gas project:

(a) the adverse cumulative impacts on the biophysical environment, on the long-term resiliency of ecological systems, as well as on fish and wildlife harvesting and other traditional land-based culture and livelihood activities supported by that biophysical environment and those ecological systems;

(b) the adverse cumulative impacts on the economic, social and cultural well-being of communities during the stages of the Mackenzie gas project and beyond, including increased vulnerability to boom and bust cycles;

(c) inequities in the distribution of positive effects within and among communities, and between men and women, youth and Elders, as well as present and future generations;

(d) the adverse impacts of boom and bust cycles and adverse legacy impacts from the depletion of non-renewable resources, including any effects that hinder bridging to more sustainable livelihoods and futures for the people of the Mackenzie Delta-Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Valley regions; and

(e) the adverse cumulative impacts of the project and associated or induced developments on the region's capacity to capture opportunities and mitigate adverse effects.”

That Bill C-4, in Clause 282, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 221 the following:

“REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

9.1 Within one year after this Act comes into force and every year thereafter, the Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a report reviewing the progress achieved and the administration of this Act, including a list of projects in respect of which contributions have been made to regional organizations and the amount of each of those contributions.”

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 282, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 221 the following:

“9.1 (1) The Minister may, after consultation with regional organizations, establish one or more committees to advise the Minister on the administration of this Act.

(2) Appointment of members to a committee shall be made having regard to the need to have a committee that has sufficient knowledge of the socio-economic conditions and issues affecting communities in northern regions.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-4 seeks to establish the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund to fund projects that mitigate existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on communities in the Northwest Territories. The amendment attempts to establish a committee to advise the Minister on the administration of this Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 767-768:

“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 proposes to establish a new committee, which would impose a charge on the public treasury. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by André Bellavance for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 282, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 222 with the following:

“greater than, in the aggregate, $650,000,000.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-4 seeks to establish the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund to fund projects that mitigate existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on communities in the Northwest Territories. The amendment attempts to increase the amount available for the fund from $500,000,000 to $633,000,000.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 767-768:

“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 proposes to increase the amount of the fund, which would impose a charge on the public treasury. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Clause 282 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 283 to 287 inclusive carried severally on division.

On Clause 288,

(a) by adding after line 20 on page 223 the following:

“(f) a person who is appointed to an office by order of the Governor in Council.”

(b) by adding after line 26 on page 223 the following:

“(g) a person who is appointed to an office by order of the Governor in Council.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of David J. McGuinty and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 288 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 289,

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 289 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 290,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 290, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 226 with the following:

“provinces and territories to which that information may be”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 11.

The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also negatived:

“a province or territory that is referred to in an instruction”

“(3.1) Despite subsection (3), an instruction given by the Minister under this section takes effect on the 30th day after it is given.”

The question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 290, be amended by deleting lines 29 to 34 on page 227.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 290, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 227 the following:

“(6) For greater certainty and despite subsection (3), an instruction given by the Minister under this section shall not have retroactive effect.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 290, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 227 the following:

“(6) Instructions given under subsection (1) shall be treated as proposed regulations referred to in subsection 5(2).

(7) Instructions given under paragraphs (1)(a),(b) and (f) to (l) shall be laid before Parliament.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 290, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 227 the following:

“(6) Instructions given under subsection (1) shall be treated as proposed regulations referred to in subsection 5(2) and shall be laid before each House of Parliament.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“(6) The Minister shall publish, in the Canada Gazette, Part 1, any instructions that the Minister proposes to give under this Division, giving interested persons a period of at least 60 days in which to make representations in respect of those instructions.

(7) The Minister shall consider any representations received during the period referred to in subsection (6) and shall give final instructions that include the day on which the instructions take effect.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 290, be amended by adding after line 43 on page 227 the following:

“10.5 Within two years after the provisions of this Division come into force and every year thereafter, a comprehensive review of the operation and impact of the Division must be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by that House.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 11.

“10.5 Within three years after the provisions of this Division come into force and every year thereafter, a comprehensive review of the operation and impact of the Division must be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by that House.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“10.5 (1) Within three years after the provisions of this Division come into force and every year thereafter, a comprehensive review of the operation and impact of the Division must be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by that House.

(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within three months after the review has been conducted or within any further period that the House of Commons may authorize, submit to that House a report that states any changes to the Division that the committee recommends.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 290 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 291 to 293 inclusive carried severally on division.

On Clause 294,

““essential service” means services for which the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 294 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 295 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 296,

“296. Subsection 16(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

16. (1) The compensation analysis and research services to be provided by the Board include conducting compensation surveys in the private and public sectors, compiling information relating to compensation, analyzing that information and making it, and the analysis, available to the parties and to the public, and conducting any research relating to compensation that the Chairperson may direct.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 296 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 297 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 298,

“298. Subsection 53(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(3) All of the members must have knowledge or experience that will assist the advisory board to accomplish its mandate, including knowledge of or experience in compensation issues, labour economics or statistics.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 298 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 299 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 300 and 301 which are therefore also adopted.

On Clause 302,

“302. Section 104 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) Despite subsections (1) to (3), if, on the day on which notice to bargain”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 302 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 303 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clause 304 which is therefore also adopted.

On Clause 305,

“119. The employer may only determine that a service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada is essential in a manner that is consistent with the definition of “essential service” in this Act and in International Labour Organization conventions.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 305 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 306 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 307 to 470 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

On Clause 471,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by André Bellavance for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting clause 471.

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“at least 10 consecutive years in good standing at the bar of a”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.

Clause 471 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 472,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by André Bellavance for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting clause 472.

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“were an advocate of at least 10 consecutive years in good standing at”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.

Clause 472 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On new Clause 473,

“Coming into Force

473. Sections 471 and 472 come into force on a day, not earlier than January 16, 2014, to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”

The question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.

Schedule 1 carried.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried on division.

After debate, the Title carried on division.

The Bill carried.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill to the House.

At 8:26 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.