FINA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
It was agreed, — That a proposed budget in the amount of $ 9750.00, for the study of the Subject Matter of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures, be adopted.
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.
Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 15,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-30, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 11 with the following:“(d) the product obtained by multiplying 0 by the amount of the bene-”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
After debate, Clause 15 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 16 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 17 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 18 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 19 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 20 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 21 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 22 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 23 carried on division.
On Clause 24,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-30, in Clause 24, be amended(a) by replacing line 33 on page 27 with the following:
“(e) for any of the twentieth qualifying period to the twenty-third qualifying period, the lesser of”
(b) by replacing line 39 on page 27 with the following:
“(f) for each qualifying period after the twenty-third quali-”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
(a) by replacing line 19 on page 30 with the following:
“(j) for the twentieth qualifying period to the twenty-third qualifying period,”
(b) by replacing line 27 on page 30 with the following:
“(k) for a qualifying period after the twenty-third qualify-”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
(a) by adding after line 27 on page 31 the following:
“(c.992) for the twenty-third qualifying period, December 2021; and”
(b) by adding after line 4 on page 33 the following:
“(xxiii) for the twenty-third qualifying period, December 2019;”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
“(10.1) The definition eligible entity in subsection 125.7(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “(entité déterminée)” at the end of paragraph (f) and by adding the following after that paragraph:
but does not include a political party. (entité déterminée)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gabriel Ste-Marie and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Gabriel Ste-Marie — 1;
NAYS: Julie Dzerowicz, Ted Falk, Ed Fast, Peter Fragiskatos, Sean Fraser, Tamara Jansen, Peter Julian, Pat Kelly, Annie Koutrakis, Michael V. McLeod — 10.
“(d) the period that begins on November 21, 2021 and ends on December 31, 2021 (referred to in this section as the “twenty-third qualifying period”). (période d’admissibilité)”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
(a) by replacing line 41 on page 35 with the following:
“qualifying period to the twenty-third qualifying period,”
(b) by replacing line 6 on page 36 with the following:
“(b) for a qualifying period after the twenty-third qualify-”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
“eighth qualifying period to the twenty-third qualifying”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
(a) by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 37 with the following:
“under subsection (2) in respect of the fifteenth qualifying period or any subse-”
(b) by replacing line 39 on page 37 with the following:
“section (2) in respect of the fifteenth”
(c) by replacing line 14 on page 38 with the following:
“under subsection (2) for the fifteenth”
(d) by replacing line 23 on page 38 with the following:
“for the fifteenth qualifying period and each”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gabriel Ste-Marie and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 2;
NAYS: Julie Dzerowicz, Ted Falk, Ed Fast, Peter Fragiskatos, Sean Fraser, Tamara Jansen, Pat Kelly, Annie Koutrakis, Michael V. McLeod — 9.
(a) by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 37 with the following:
“under subsection (2) in respect of the first qualifying period or any subse-”
(b) by replacing line 39 on page 37 with the following:
“section (2) in respect of the first”
(c) by replacing line 14 on page 38 with the following:
“under subsection (2) for the first”
(d) by replacing line 23 on page 38 with the following:
“for the first qualifying period and each”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived.
“period to the twenty-third qualifying period, is deemed”
After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“(16) Regulations made under paragraph (k) of the definition base percentage or paragraph (b) of the definition rent subsidy percentage in subsection (1) may provide for different classes of taxpayers and different percentages applicable to each class.”
After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“(32.1) The Minister of Finance must prepare a report on proposed measures to
(a) prevent publicly traded companies and their subsidiaries from paying dividends or repurchasing their own shares while receiving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, for the period that is after the tabling of the report under subsection (32.2); and
(b) recover wage subsidy amounts from publicly traded companies and their subsidiaries that paid dividends or repurchased their own shares while receiving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, for the period that is before the tabling of the report under subsection (32.2).
(32.2) The Minister of Finance must cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament no later than 30 days after the day on which this Act receives royal assent or, if either House is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Julie Dzerowicz, Peter Fragiskatos, Sean Fraser, Peter Julian, Annie Koutrakis, Michael V. McLeod, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 7;
NAYS: Ted Falk, Ed Fast, Tamara Jansen, Pat Kelly — 4.
Clause 24, as amended, carried on division.
After debate, Clause 25 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 26 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 27 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 28 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 29 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 30 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 31 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 32 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 33 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 34 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 35 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 36 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 37 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 38 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 39 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 40 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 41 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 42 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 43 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 44 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 45 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 46 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 47 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 48 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 49 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 50 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 51 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 52 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 53 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 54 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 55 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 56 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 57 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 58 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 59 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 60 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 61 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 62 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 63 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 64 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 65 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 66 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 67 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 68 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 69 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 70 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 71 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 72 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 73 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 74 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 75 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 76 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 77 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 78 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 79 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 80 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 81 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 82 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 83 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 84 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 85 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 86 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 87 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 88 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 89 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 90 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 91 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 92 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 93 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 94 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 95 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 96 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 97 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 98 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 99 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 100 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 101 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 102 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 103 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 104 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 105 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 106 carried on division.
At 7:04 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 7:34 p.m., the sitting resumed.
After debate, Clause 107 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 108 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 109 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 110 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 111 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 112 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 113 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 114 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 115 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 116 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 117 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 118 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 119 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 120 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 121 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 122 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 123 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 124 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 125 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 126 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 127 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 128 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 129 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 130 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 131 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 132 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 133 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 134 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 135 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 136 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 137 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 138 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 139 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 140 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 141 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 142 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 143 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 144 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 145 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 146 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 147 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 148 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 149 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 150 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 151 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 152 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 153 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 154 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 155 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 156 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 157 carried on division.
On Clause 158,
Gabriel Ste-Marie moved, — That Bill C-30, in Clause 158, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 185 with the following:“aggregate amount not exceeding $1, or any”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gabriel Ste-Marie and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 2;
NAYS: Julie Dzerowicz, Ted Falk, Ed Fast, Peter Fragiskatos, Sean Fraser, Tamara Jansen, Pat Kelly, Annie Koutrakis, Michael V. McLeod — 9.
Clause 158 was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Julie Dzerowicz, Peter Fragiskatos, Sean Fraser, Annie Koutrakis, Michael V. McLeod — 5;
NAYS: Ted Falk, Ed Fast, Tamara Jansen, Peter Julian, Pat Kelly, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 6.
After debate, Clause 159 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 160 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 161 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 162 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 163 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 164 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 165 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 166 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 167 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 168 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 169 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 170 carried on division.
At 9:33 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.