FINA Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Finance met in a televised session at 11:49 a.m. this day, in Room 237-C, Centre Block, 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.

Midorag Jovanovic, Denis Martel, Steven Kuhn, Kim Gowing, Mark Potter, Robert Abramowitz and David Charter answered questions.

After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive carried.

After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 11 and 12 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 9; NAYS: — 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 13 to 17 inclusive carried.

After debate, Clause 18 carried.

After debate, Clause 19 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Ron Cannan, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 20 to 24 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 9; NAYS: — 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 25 to 28 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 9; NAYS: — 0.

After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 29 and 30 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, , Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 6; NAYS: — Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 31 to 34 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Ron Cannan, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: — Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 35 to 40 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Ron Cannan, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 8; NAYS: — Scott Brison — 1.

On Clause 41,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 41, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 40 the following:

“BUDGET

4.1 (1) The Minister must, in respect of a fiscal year, table a budget in the House of Commons that includes financial information associated with every item of expense no later than 30 days before the beginning of the fiscal year.

(2) If the Minister does not table a budget in accordance with subsection (1), the Minister must appear before the appropriate committee of the House of Commons on any of the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the budget should have been tabled to explain the reasons for not doing so and to provide the date on which the budget for the fiscal year will be tabled.”

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

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 41, be amended by adding before line 8 on page 43 the following:

11.1 If the deficit referred to in section 6 or 9 is due to investments that have a positive discounted net present value of costs and economic and social returns, the measures set out in subsections 7(1) and 8(1) do not apply.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

After debate, Clause 41 carried on division.

On Clause 42,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 42, be amended

(a) by deleting line 35 on page 44 to line 3 on page 45.

(b) by replacing lines 14 to 18 on page 45 with the following:

“informed of the Minister's case;”

(c) by deleting lines 21 to 30 on page 45.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 42, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 45 the following:

“(a.1) if the proceeding is held in the absence of the appellant and their counsel, the judge must appoint a special advocate to protect the interests of the appellant;”

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

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 42, be amended

(a) by deleting lines 30 to 38 on page 46.

(b) by replacing lines 4 to 9 on page 47 with the following:

“enables the applicant to be informed of the reasons for the Minister's decision;”

(c) by deleting lines 12 to 16 on page 47.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 42, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 46 the following:

“(a.1) if the proceeding is held in the absence of the applicant and their counsel, the judge must appoint a special advocate to protect the interests of the applicant;”

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

Clause 42 carried.

Clause 43 carried.

At 12:39 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 12:51 p.m., the sitting resumed.

After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 44 to 53 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 54,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 54, be amended

(a) by adding after line 33 on page 50 the following:

“(1.1) In order for a communication to be privileged under subsection (1), it must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relationship between the person and the client and it must be a communication in respect of which the injury to the relationship between the person and the client that would result from a disclosure or testimony would be greater than the benefit that would be gained.”

(b) by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 50 with the following:

“is privileged under subsection (1).”

(c) by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 51 with the following:

“nication that is privileged under subsection (1).”

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

After debate, Clause 54 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 55 to 65 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 66,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 66, be amended

(a) by adding after line 9 on page 55 the following:

“(1.1) In order for a communication to be privileged under subsection (1), it must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relationship between the person and the client and it must be a communication in respect of which the injury to the relationship between the person and the client that would result from a disclosure or testimony would be greater than the benefit that would be gained.”

(b) by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 55 with the following:

“is privileged under subsection (1).”

(c) by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 55 with the following:

“communication that is privileged under subsection (1).”

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

After debate, Clause 66 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 4.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 67 to 72 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 73 to 80 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 9; NAYS: — 0.

On Clause 81,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 81, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 66 with the following:

“until the earlier of the end of 50 years after”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 81, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 66 with the following:

“continues until the earlier of the end of 50”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.

After debate, Clause 81 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 82 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 83 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 84,

“priorities, if the Minister is of the opinion that the support

(i) contributes to poverty reduction,

(ii) takes into account the perspectives of the poor,

(iii) is consistent with international human rights standards, and

(iv) clearly constitutes financial support that is not available from other sources and that benefits development.

(1.01) The Minister shall consult with governments, international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations at least once every two years, and shall take their views and recommendations into consideration when forming an opinion described in paragraph (1)(c).”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 84, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 67 with the following:

“priorities, in particular the reduction of poverty, which development financing or support shall not be interpreted to be a substitute for official development assistance as defined in section 3 of the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act.”

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

Clause 84 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 85,

“25.1 (1) In addition to the review requirements under section 25, the Minister shall, five years after the coming into force of paragraph 10(1)(c) and every five years thereafter, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, cause an in-depth review to be undertaken of the extent to which requirements under that paragraph are being met.

(2) The Minister shall cause a report of the review conducted under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament within one year after the day on which the review is completed.”

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

Clause 86 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

After debate, Clause 87 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 9; NAYS: — 0.

Clause 88 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 89,

“(1.2) Except for subsections 239.1(1) and (4) and sections 247.1 to 247.4 and 251.01 and to the extent provided for in the”

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.

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:

“(1.3) No employer to whom this Part applies may engage a person to perform activities without remuneration except under the circumstances described in subsection (1.2)."

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 69 with the following:

“(1.2) Except for sections 247.1 to 247.4 and to the extent provided for in the”

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

At 1:50 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 3:14 p.m., the sitting resumed.

“Canada, described in the regulations, and the following conditions are met:

(i) the person is not replacing an employee, and

(ii) the employer informs the person in writing, before the person performs any of the activities, that he or she will not be renumerated; or”

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.

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.

“them and few or no benefits accrue to the employer,”

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, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4; NAYS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Ron Cannan, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5.

Clause 89 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 6; NAYS: Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 90 and 91 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 92,

“(a.11) respecting persons referred to in subsection 167(1.2), to specify

(i) the number of hours that may be worked by such persons, to maximums of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week,

(ii) the amount of time such persons are to have between shifts, to a minimum of 12 hours,

(iii) that such persons are entitled, at a minimum, to the same rest and meal periods as employees, and

(iv) that such persons are entitled to general holidays;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 3; NAYS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 6.

Clause 92 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 93 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

After debate, Clause 94 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.

Clause 95 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 96 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.

On Clause 97,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 97, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 18 on page 73 with the following:

“and must not exceed 25 years.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-59 amends the National Energy Act by altering the maximum period for the duration of export licenses. The amendment proposes to re-establish the maximum period for the duration of export licenses that is currently in the Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair, this amendment attempts to maintain the maximum duration period for export licenses that is currently in the National Energy Act. This is contrary to the principle of the Bill, which is to establish a new maximum duration period for export licenses. Therefore the amendment is inadmissible.

After debate, Clause 97 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 8; NAYS: — 0.

On Clause 98,

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-59, in Clause 98, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 75 with the following:

“responsible for the Service, shall, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, determine the terms and conditions of an arrangement to have the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; 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-59, in Clause 98, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 75 the following:

“(3) The Director, or the person acting as the Director on an interim basis, shall, in carrying out his or her duties and responsibilities under this Act, be exempted from any actions taken or recommended by the Commissioner under sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 12 and 14 and paragraphs 18(d) and 20.2(1)(e) and i) to (k) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

(4) For greater certainty, despite any other Act of Parliament, the Director, while carrying out his or her duties and responsibilities under the arrangement entered into under section 79.55, shall report exclusively to the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; 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-59, in Clause 98, be amended

(a) by replacing line 1 on page 76 with the following:

“79.58 (1) Nothing in sec-”

(b) by adding after line 5 on page 76 the following: “

(2) Search warrants within the parliamentary precinct may only be executed with the explicit consent of the Speaker of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Commons, according to the nature of the warrant and its impact on the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of each of their respective Houses and of the members of those Houses, and in accordance with the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act in its Third Report, tabled in the House of Commons on May 29, 1990.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 98 and 99 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 6; NAYS: , Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 3.

On Clause 100,

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-59, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 76 with the following:

“position within the Service on that day and, in accordance with the motions related to fully integrated security that were adopted in the Senate and the House of Commons on February 16, 2015 and February 24, 2015 respectively, shall continue to occupy their position subject to the discretion of the Speaker of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, as the case may be.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 100 to 152 inclusive carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 6; NAYS: , Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 3.

After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 153 to 160 inclusive carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 9; NAYS: — 0.

After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 161 to 163 inclusive carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Joyce Bateman, Scott Brison, Ron Cannan, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 9; NAYS: — 0.

On Clause 164,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 164, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 101 with the following:

“personal information set out in column 2 unless the organization is exempt by order made under paragraph 26(2)(b).”

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

Clause 164 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 165 and 166 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 167 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 168,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 168, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 102 the following:

“(2) Biometric information collected under subsection (1) may only be used to prevent fraudulent claims, applications or requests under this Act.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 168, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 103 the following:

“(2) The Minister shall consult with the Privacy Commissioner appointed under section 53 of the Privacy Act before the making of a regulation referred to in subsection (1).”

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

After debate, Clause 168 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 169 to 173 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 174,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 174, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 104 with the following:

“al information that is collected at any one time under this Act”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.

Clause 174 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 175,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 175, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 105 with the following:

“tem, but not an automated system, may be”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 175, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 32 on page 106.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.

Clause 175 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

Clause 176 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 177 to 205 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 206 to 209 inclusive carried.

On Clause 210,

(a) by replacing line 21 on page 122 with the following:

“an amount equal to the greater of

(a) $2,027.75; and

(b) the amount determined in accordance with the formula”

(b) by replacing line 32 on page 123 with the following:

“an amount equal to the greater of

(a) $2,027.75; and

(b) the amount determined in accordance with the formula”

(c) by replacing line 36 on page 124 with the following:

“an amount equal to the greater of

(a) $2,027.75; and

(b) the amount determined in accordance with the formula”

(d) by replacing line 35 on page 125 with the following:

“a survivor shall be an amount equal to the greater of

(a) $2,027.75; and

(b) the amount determined in accordance”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendment would result in an increase the value of the benefit in question.

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 value of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

(a) by replacing line 24 on page 122 with the following:

“A is the earnings loss benefit to which”

(b) by replacing line 32 on page 122 with the following:

“B is the permanent impairment”

(c) by replacing line 35 on page 123 with the following:

“A is the earnings loss benefit to which”

(d) by replacing line 1 on page 124 with the following:

“B is the permanent impairment”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendment would result in an increase the value of the benefit in question.

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 value of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Raymond Côté moved, —That Bill C-59, in Clause 210, be amended

(a) by replacing line 42 on page 122 with the following:

“the total value of A and B in subsection (4), which must include an adjustment for any annual increase of the Consumer Price Index;”

(b) by replacing line 11 on page 124 with the following:

“the total value of A and B in subsection (4), which must include an adjustment for any annual increase of the Consumer Price Index;”

(c) by replacing line 11 on page 125 with the following:

“the value of A in subsection (4), which must include an adjustment for any annual increase of the Consumer Price Index; and” That Bill C-59, in Clause 210, be amended

(d) by replacing line 12 on page 126 with the following:

“the value of A in subsection (4), which must include an adjustment for any annual increase of the Consumer Price Index; and”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Raymond Côté and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 210, be amended

(a) by adding after line 4 on page 123 the following:

“(6) The adjustment referred to in subsection (5) must take into account the age and the needs of the veteran and must not amount in a decrease of the retirement income security benefit payable to the veteran.”

(b) by adding after line 16 on page 124 the following:

“(6) The adjustment referred to in subsection (5) must take into account the age and the needs of the veteran and must not amount in a decrease of the retirement income security benefit payable to the veteran.”

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

Clause 210 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

Clause 211 carried.

After debate, Clause 212 carried.

Clause 213 carried.

On Clause 214,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 214, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 4 to 8 on page 128 with the following:

“(a) was a service-related injury or disease; and

(b) caused a severe impairment”

(b) by deleting lines 14 to 17 on page 128.

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendment would result in a greater number of individuals being eligible for the benefit in question.

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 would increase the eligibility of the said benefit, which would impose an additional 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 Bruce Hyer for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-59, in Clause 214, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 128 with the following:

“(b) was the result of any sudden incident or incidents;”

(b) by replacing line 17 on page 128 with the following:

“a sudden incident.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendment would result in a greater number of individuals being eligible for the benefit in question.

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 would increase the eligibility of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

“(c) caused a severe physical or psychological impairment”

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

Clause 214 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 215 and 216 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 217,

“ongoing care, the Minister shall consider

(a) the fact that, in the case of a psychological injury or disease, the need for the presence of another person is a sufficient criteria to decide that the veteran requires ongoing care; and

(b) the prescribed criteria.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendment would result in a greater number of individuals being eligible for the benefit in question.

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 would increase the eligibility of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

“(2.1) The person referred to in paragraph (1)(c) can be a friend or a relative of the veteran and is not required to possess any special qualification.”

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

“65.2 The daily amount of a family care-”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendment would result in an increase the value of the benefit in question.

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 value of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

“shall be the amount determined by the Minister, which shall not be less than the amount set out in column 2 of item”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendment would result in an increase the value of the benefit in question.

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 value of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

After debate, Clause 217 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 218 to 224 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

On Clause 225,

“12,000.00”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendment would result in an increase the value of the benefit in question.

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 value of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

“100.00

(daily)”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures. The amendment would result in an increase the value of the benefit in question.

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 value of the said benefit, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

After debate, Clause 225 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 226 to 229 inclusive carried.

On Clause 230,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 230, be amended

(a) by replacing line 10 on page 135 with the following:

“67.1, does not apply, as of April 5, 2012,”

(b) by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 135 with the following:

“45 and 68, does not apply, as of April 5, 2012, with respect to personal information, as”

(c) by replacing line 28 on page 135 with the following:

“after April 5, 2012 is to be determined in”

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

“(5.1) Subsections (4) and (5) do not apply to the records and copies referred to in subsections (1) and (2) if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they could afford evidence of an act or omission that constitutes an offence under an Act of Parliament.”

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

After debate, Clause 230 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Colin Mayes, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren, Mike Wallace — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

On Clause 231,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 231, be amended

(a) by replacing line 8 on page 136 with the following:

“them, with respect to the lawful destruction, on or”

(b) by deleting lines 11 to 29 on page 136.

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

“(4) Subsection (2) does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records and copies referred to in subsections 29(1) and (2) could be evidence of an act or omission that constitutes an offence under an Act of Parliament.”

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

Clause 231 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Colin Mayes, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren, Mike Wallace — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

On new Clause 231.1,

“231.1 This Division comes into force on July 1, 2017.”

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

At 5:20 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 5:28 p.m., the sitting resumed.

On new Clause 232.1,

“232.1 Section 440 of the Bank Act is renumbered as subsection 440(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) A bank shall not, directly or indirectly, charge or receive any sum for the handling of a payment by a customer to the bank or for the supplying of account statements or billing statements.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend section 440 of the Bank Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 766-767:

“… an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 440 of the Bank Act is not being amended by Bill C-59, it is therefore the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 232 to 252 inclusive carried on division.

After debate, Clause 253 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Dave MacKenzie, Colin Mayes, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

On Clause 254,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 254, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 148 with the following:

“254. If there is an agreement between the Treasury Board and the bargaining agent for employees in a particular bargaining unit to that effect, the Treasury Board may, during”

(b) by replacing line 24 on page 148 with the following:

“the sick leave of employees in the particular”

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

Clause 254 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Dave MacKenzie, Colin Mayes, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 255 to 259 inclusive carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Dave MacKenzie, Colin Mayes, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

On Clause 260,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 260, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 150 with the following:

“260. If there is an agreement between the Treasury Board and the bargaining agent for employees in a particular bargaining unit to that effect, the Treasury Board may, in the”

(b) by replacing lines 22 to 25 on page 150 with the following:

“particular bargaining unit and take any measure necessary for”

(c) by deleting line 39 on page 150 to line 3 on page 151.

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

Clause 260 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Dave MacKenzie, Colin Mayes, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 261 to 266 inclusive carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Dave MacKenzie, Colin Mayes, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

On Clause 267,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 267, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 152 with the following:

“267. If there is an agreement between the Treasury Board and the bargaining agent for employees in a particular bargaining unit to that effect, the Treasury Board may, during”

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

By unanimous consent, Clauses 267 to 272 inclusive carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Dave MacKenzie, Colin Mayes, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

On Clause 273,

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

That Bill C-59, in Clause 273, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 154 with the following:

“apply to orders made under sections 254”

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

Clause 273 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Mark Adler, Dave MacKenzie, Colin Mayes, Andrew Saxton, Dave Van Kesteren — 5; NAYS: Scott Brison, Guy Caron, Raymond Côté, Murray Rankin — 4.

Schedule 1 carried on division.

Schedule 2 carried on division.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried on division.

The Title carried on division.

The Bill carried on division.

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

At 5:47 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.