FINA Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Finance met in a televised session at 3:31 p.m. this day, in Room C-110, 1 Wellington Street, the Chair, James Rajotte, presiding.

Nathan Cullen moved, — That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance invite the Minister of Employment and Social Development to appear before the Committee to discuss aspects of the temporary foreign worker program, including changes recently proposed in Part 6, Division 20 of Bill C-31 related to enforcement penalties, as well as impacts of the program on employment, unemployment, vacancies, and wages.

After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

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

The witnesses answered questions.

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

The Chair called Clause 2.

After debate, Clause 2 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive carried severally.

After debate, Clause 7 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Gerald Keddy, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 9; NAYS: — 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 8 to 22 inclusive carried severally.

Clause 23 carried.

At 3:42 p.m., by unanimous consent and pursuant to Standing Order 115(5), it was agreed that the Committee continue to sit.

After debate, Clause 24 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Gerald Keddy, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Murray Rankin — 4.

At 3:58 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:35 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Clause 25 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Gerald Keddy, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Murray Rankin — 3.

Clause 26 carried.

On Clause 27,

“232 and 244.7 or a regulation made under”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Murray Rankin — 4; NAYS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Gerald Keddy, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5.

Clause 27 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Gerald Keddy, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Murray Rankin — 4.

On Clause 28,

(a) by replacing lines 35 to 37 on page 14 with the following:

“(9.5) An official may submit to a judge of the Federal Court ”

(b) by adding after line 32 on page 15 the following:

“(9.6) Upon receiving taxpayer information under subsection (9.5), the judge must examine it to determine if the public interest in sharing the information with an appropriate police organization would outweigh the risk of harm to the interests of the taxpayer.

(9.7) If the judge determines under subsection (9.6) that the taxpayer information should be shared with an appropriate police organization, the judge must immediately forward it to a law enforcement officer of such an organization. ”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Murray Rankin — 4; NAYS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Gerald Keddy, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5.

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-31, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 14 with the following:

“(a) taxpayer information, with the authorization of a judge of the Federal Court where the judge is satisfied on the basis of an affidavit that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 28 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 29 and 30 carried severally by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 31,

“before April”

Mike Allen moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the following after the text of the proposed motion:

“(b) by replacing lines 6 to 9 on page 25 with the following:

(4) The obligation to table does not apply in respect of a particular fiscal year if

(a) there are no specific legislative proposals to be included in the list referred to in subsection (2); or

(b) the fifth day on which the House of Commons is sitting after October 31 of the particular fiscal year is less than 12 months after the last general election.”

By unanimous consent, the subamendment, the amendment and Clause 31 were allowed to stand.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 32 to 34 inclusive carried severally.

Clause 35 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Scott Brison, Gerald Keddy, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 6; NAYS: Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Murray Rankin — 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 36 to 39 inclusive carried severally.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 31 and to the consideration of the subamendment of Mike Allen previously stood which read as follows:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following after the text of the proposed motion:

“(b) by replacing lines 6 to 9 on page 25 with the following:

(4) The obligation to table does not apply in respect of a particular fiscal year if

(a) there are no specific legislative proposals to be included in the list referred to in subsection (2); or

(b) the fifth day on which the House of Commons is sitting after October 31 of the particular fiscal year is less than 12 months after the last general election.”.

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Mike Allen and it was agreed to.

The question was put on the amendment of Nathan Cullen, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Gerald Keddy, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 9; NAYS: — 0.

Clause 31, as amended, carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 40 to 49 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 50,

(a) by replacing lines 37 to 39 on page 37 with the following:

“(5.04) An official may submit to a judge of the Federal Court”

(b) by adding after line 38 on page 38 the following:

“(5.05) Upon receiving confidential information under subsection (5.04), the judge must examine it to determine if the public interest in sharing the information with an appropriate police organization would outweigh the risk of harm to the interests of the taxpayer.

(5.06) If the judge determines under subsection (5.05) that the confidential information should be shared with an appropriate police organization, the judge must immediately forward it to a law enforcement officer of such an organization.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 50 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 51 to 55 inclusive carried severally.

After debate, Clause 56 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Gerald Keddy, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Murray Rankin — 4.

Clause 57 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Gerald Keddy, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Murray Rankin — 4.

Clause 58 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Gerald Keddy, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 9; NAYS: — 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 59 to 61 inclusive carried severally.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 62 to 74 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 75,

(a) by replacing lines 9 to 11 on page 56 with the following:

“(6.4) An official may submit to a judge of the Federal Court”

(b) by adding after line 8 on page 57 the following:

“(6.5) Upon receiving confidential information under subsection (6.4), the judge must examine it to determine if the public interest in sharing the information with an appropriate police organization would outweigh the risk of harm to the interests of the taxpayer.

(6.6) If the judge determines under subsection (6.5) that the confidential information should be shared with an appropriate police organization, the judge must immediately forward it to a law enforcement officer of such an organization.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Nathan Cullen, Murray Rankin — 4; NAYS: Mark Adler, Mike Allen, Gerald Keddy, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5.

Clause 75 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 76 to 90 inclusive carried severally.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 91 and 92 carried severally.

Clause 93 carried on division.

Clause 94 carried on division.

Clause 95 carried.

Clause 96 carried on division.

Clause 97 carried.

Clause 98 carried on division.

At 5:28 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.