RNNR 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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Meeting No. 35

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources met at 8:45 a.m. this day, in Room 268, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Leon Benoit, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Leon Benoit, Kelly Block, Blaine Calkins, Joan Crockatt, Linda Duncan, Christine Moore, Hon. Geoff Regan and Brad Trost.

Acting Members present: Stella Ambler for Ryan Leef and Niki Ashton for Chris Charlton.

Other Members present: Elizabeth May.

In attendance: House of Commons: Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk ; David-Andrés Novoa, Legislative Clerk . Library of Parliament: Jean-Luc Bourdages, Analyst ; Milana Simikian, Analyst.

Witnesses: Department of Natural Resources: Jeff Labonté, Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector; Tyler Cummings, Deputy Director, Frontier Lands Management Division, Petroleum Resources Branch; Jean François Roman, Legal Counsel, Legal Services; Joanne Kellerman, General Counsel and Executive Director, Legal Services; Dave McCauley, Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Energy Sector. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Michel Chenier, Director, Petroleum and Mineral Resources Management Directorate, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Northern Affairs.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Thursday, May 29, 2014, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.

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

Jeff Labonté, Tyler Cummings, Jean François Roman, Joanne Kellerman and Dave McCauley answered questions.

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

The Chair called Clause 2.

On Clause 2,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 2 with the following:

““spill-treating agent””

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

Clause 2 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 3 to 13 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 14,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 35 on page 8.

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

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 8 the following:

“(b.4) concerning the process for determining the scope and calculating the cost of the environmental damage of any spill;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Christine Moore and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Niki Ashton, Linda Duncan, Christine Moore, Geoff Regan — 4; NAYS: Stella Ambler, Kelly Block, Blaine Calkins, Joan Crockatt, Brad Trost — 5.

Geoff Regan moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 8 the following:

“(b.4) concerning the process for determining the scope and calculating the cost of the loss of non-use value relating to a public resource;”

Debate arose thereon.

Linda Duncan moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the word “public”.

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

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

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 14, be amended by adding before line 1 on page 9 the following:

“(h.01) concerning the calculation and recovery of damages for a loss of non-use value;”

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 Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 9 on page 9.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Clause 14 carried on division.

Clause 15 carried on division.

On clause 16,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 9 with the following:

“than one that is authorized under the regulations or any other federal law.”

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

Clause 16 carried on division.

Clause 17 carried on division.

Clause 18 carried on division.

On clause 19,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 19, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 33 to 35 on page 13 with the following:

“without proof of fault or negligence, for the actual loss or damage,”

(b) by replacing lines 17 to 19 on page 14 with the following:

“of fault or negligence, for that loss, actual loss or damage, and”

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

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 19, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 15 the following:

“(2.31) For every authorization issued under paragraph 5(1)(b), the National Energy Board must conduct an assessment of the risk associated with the work or activity that may be carried on and must, if the risk associated with the work or activity justifies it, increase the amounts referred to in subsection (2.2) in respect of that work or activity.

(2.32) For the purposes of this Act, if an amount is increased under subsection (2.31) in respect of a work or activity, a reference to the amounts referred to in subsection (2.2) is to be read, with respect to that work or activity, as a reference to the amounts increased under subsection (2.31).”

Clause 19 carried on division.

On clause 20,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 20, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 15 to 27 on page 16 with the following:

“under paragraph 5(1)(b) for any work or activity”

(b) by replacing line 33 on page 16 with the following:

“mines an amount under subsection (1), the”

“referred to in subsection (1) remains in”

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 Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 16 the following:

“(2.1) In determining the amount under subsection (1) or (2), the National Energy Board shall assess the potential liability of the applicant in the event of a severe incident with extreme and significant environmental effects and consequences.”

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

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 16 with the following:

“Board, unless requested to do so by the Minister, is not required to consider any potential”

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 16 with the following:

“Board is required to consider any potential”

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

Clause 20 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 21 to 50 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 51,

Kelly Block moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 51, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 57 the following:

“It includes any physical activity that is incidental to the physical activity described in paragraphs (a) to (d).”

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

Clause 51, as amended, carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 52 to 86 inclusive carried on division.

On Clause 87,

Kelly Block moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 87, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 91 the following:

“It includes any physical activity that is incidental to the physical activity described in paragraphs (a) to (d).”

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

Clause 87, as amended, carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 88 to 117 inclusive carried on division.

On Clause 118,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 118, be amended by deleting line 31 on page 130 to line 15 on page 131.

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

That Bill C-22, in Clause 118, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 31 on page 131.

Clause 118 carried on division.

Clause 119 carried on division.

On Clause 120,

Kelly Block moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by

(a) adding after line 34 on page 133 the following:

““Installation State” means a Contracting State within whose territory is situated a nuclear installation as defined in Article 1.I(b) of the Annex to the Convention or, if the nuclear installation is not within the territory of a Contracting State, the Contracting State by which or under whose authority the nuclear installation is operated.”

(b) replacing line 8 on page 134 with the following:

“the definition “Installation State” and subparagraphs 9(1)(b.1)(i) and (b.2)(i) and 9(4)(b)(i) and (c)(i) of the”

“(b.1) ionizing radiation emitted from nuclear material being transported from the operator’s nuclear installation

(i) before liability is assumed under the terms of a written contract, by a person who is within the territory of a Contracting State other than Canada and who is designated or recognized under the laws of that State as operating a nuclear installation as defined in Article 1.I(b) of the Annex to the Convention, or

(ii) in the absence of a contract, before that person takes charge of the nuclear material;

(b.2) ionizing radiation emitted from nuclear material being transported to the operator’s nuclear installation

(i) after liability is assumed by the operator under the terms of a written contract, from a person who is within the territory of a Contracting State other than Canada and who is designated or recognized under the laws of that State as operating a nuclear installation as defined in Article 1.I(b) of the Annex to the Convention, or

(ii) in the absence of a contract, after the operator takes charge of the nuclear material; or”

(d) replacing line 19 on page 137 with the following:

“graph (b), (b.1) or (b.2).”

(e) replacing lines 5 to 17 on page 139 with the following:

“(a) ionizing radiation emitted from nuclear material being transported

(i) from the operator’s nuclear installation to a person who is within the territory of a State that is not a Contracting State until it is unloaded from the means of transport by which it arrived in that State; or

(ii) with the operator’s written consent, from a person who is within the territory of a State that is not a Contracting State to the operator’s nuclear installation, from the time it is loaded on the means of transport by which it is to be carried from that State; or

(b) a combination of the radioactive properties and toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of nuclear material referred to in paragraph (a).”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kelly Block and it was agreed to on division.

Geoff Regan moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 134 with the following:

“English version, any nuclear power plant, nuclear research reactor, fuel processing plant or facility for managing used nuclear reactor fuel”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 135 with the following:

“a nuclear incident in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle.”

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:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 135 with the following:

“a nuclear incident and to recognize accountability in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle.”

Geoff Regan moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 135 with the following:

“sion, designate by regulation any nuclear power plant, nuclear research reactor, fuel processing plant or facility for managing used nuclear reactor fuel that is authorized by a licence issued under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and that contains nuclear material as”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 136 with the following:

“9. (1) An operator is liable for damage that is”

(b) by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 137 with the following:

“(2) An operator is liable for damage that is caused”

“operator is liable for damage that occurs in the”

(d) by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 137 with the following:

“(4) An operator is liable for damage that is caused”

(e) by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 138 with the following:

“(5) An operator is liable for any damage that is”

(f) by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 139 with the following:

“(6) An operator is liable for damage that is caused”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Christine Moore and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Niki Ashton, Christine Moore, Geoff Regan — 3; NAYS: Stella Ambler, Kelly Block, Blaine Calkins, Joan Crockatt, Brad Trost — 5.

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 139 with the following:

“absolute up to the amount of liability set out in section 24.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Christine Moore and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Niki Ashton, Linda Duncan, Christine Moore — 3; NAYS: Stella Ambler, Kelly Block, Blaine Calkins, Joan Crockatt, Geoff Regan, Brad Trost — 6.

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 139 the following:

“(3) Despite subsection (1), all persons to whose fault or negligence the damage is attributable or who are by law responsible for others to whose fault or negligence the damage is attributable are jointly and severally liable, to the extent determined according to the degree of the fault or negligence proved against them.”

Geoff Regan moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 139 the following:

“11.1 (1) Where damage that is caused by a nuclear incident occurs in any area to which this Act applies,

(a) the operators or persons to whose fault or negligence the nuclear incident is attributable are jointly and severally liable, to the extent determined according to the degree of the fault or negligence proved against them, for

(i) all actual loss or damage incurred by any person as a result of the nuclear incident or as a result of any action or measure taken in relation to the nuclear incident,

(ii) the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or any other person in taking any action or measure in relation to the nuclear incident, and

(iii) all loss of non-use value relating to a public resource that is affected by a nuclear incident or by any action or measure taken in relation to the nuclear incident; and

(b) the operator of a nuclear installation designated under section 7 is liable, without proof of fault or negligence, up to the applicable limit of liability that is set out in subsection 24(1) for the actual loss or damage and the costs and expenses caused by a nuclear incident described in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).

(2) The operator of a nuclear installation designated under section 7 who retains the services of a supplier or contractor to whom paragraph (1)(a) or (b) applies is jointly and severably liable with that supplier or contractor for any damages described in subsection (1).”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Geoff Regan and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Linda Duncan, Christine Moore, Geoff Regan — 3; NAYS: Stella Ambler, Kelly Block, Blaine Calkins, Joan Crockatt, Brad Trost — 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 139 the following:

“11.1(1) Where damage that is caused by a nuclear incident occurs in any area to which this Act applies,

(a) the operators or persons to whose fault or negligence the nuclear incident is attributable or who are by law responsible for others to whose fault or negligence the nuclear incident is attributable are jointly and severally liable, to the extent determined according to the degree of the fault or negligence proved against them, for

(i) the compensable damages described in sections 14 to 23 of the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act,

(ii) the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or any other person in taking any action or measure in relation to the nuclear incident, and

(iii) all loss of non-use value relating to a public resource that is affected by a nuclear incident or by any action or measure taken in relation to the nuclear incident; and

(b) the operator of a nuclear installation designated under section 7 is liable, without proof of fault or negligence, up to the applicable liability limit that is set out in subsection 24(1) for damage caused by a nuclear incident described in paragraph (a).

(2) For the purposes of determining the compensable damages referred to in subparagraph (1)(a)(i), the limitations and distinctions established in section 9 that relate to the type of damage and the locus of the damage must be applied.

(3) The operator of a nuclear installation designated under section 7 who retains the services of a supplier or contractor to whom paragraph (1)(a) or (b) applies is jointly and severally liable with that supplier or contractor for any damages described 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.

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by deleting lines 35 to 39 on page 139.

At 10:48 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 10:55 a.m., the sitting resumed.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 139 with the following:

“incident by an act or omission or whose gross negligence caused the nuclear incident.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 4.

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended

(a) by replacing line 41 on page 141 to line 5 on page 143 with the following:

“incident is not limited to the amount of the financial security referred to in section 27.”

(b) by replacing lines 11 to 15 on page 143 with the following:

“that is caused by a nuclear incident of $1 billion.”

“prescribed by regulation but not exceeding $1 billion to”

(d) by replacing lines 7 to 9 on page 144 with the following:

“been fixed by regulation, exceed 50% of $1 billion.”

(e) by deleting lines 1 to 12 on page 145.

(f) by replacing line 4 on page 149 with the following:

“(a) $1 billion,”

(g) by replacing lines 23 to 33 on page 154 with the following:

“must pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada the total of all amounts that are paid by”

(h) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 155 with the following:

“more than $1 billion less the total of all amounts that are paid”

(i) by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 156 with the following:

“71. (1) When the damage exceeds $1 billion and”

(j) by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 157 with the following:

“exceeds $1 billion and public funds may be”

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended

(a) by replacing line 1 on page 142 with the following:

“(a) $1 billion for a nuclear incident”

(b) by replacing line 4 on page 142 with the following:

“(b) $5 billion for a nuclear incident”

“(c) $10 billion for a nuclear incident”

(d) by replacing line 10 on page 142 with the following:

“(d) $20 billion for a nuclear incident arising”

(e) by deleting lines 16 to 20 on page 142.

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

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 20 on page 142.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Monday, November 4, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 142 the following:

“(1.1) The review must be conducted publicly in consultation with non-industry stakeholders.”

Debate arose thereon.

Geoff Regan moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the words “industry, and” after the word “with”.

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

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

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 142 the following:

“(1.1) The review must be carried out publicly and the Minister must consult with stakeholders, including stakeholders that are not linked with the nuclear industry.”

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 147 with the following:

“(a) in relation to bodily injury or death, 50”

Kelly Block moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 156 with the following:

“71. (1) When”

(b) replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 156 with the following:

“the damage that is suffered”

“exceeds the amount made available by Canada, under Article III.1(a) of the Convention, and public funds may be”

(d) replacing line 30 on page 158 with the following:

“Installation State has made available in accordance”

Debate arose thereon.

On motion of Geoff Regan, it was agreed, — That the amendment be amended, in the English version only, by adding the words “, if it” after the word “suffered”.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kelly Block, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Christine Moore moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 120, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 161 the following:

“REVIEW AND REPORT

81. (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the provisions of this Act that set out limits on the operator's liability in order to assess if those provisions should be repealed.

(2) The Minister must cause a report on the review to be laid before each House of Parliament within one year after the day on which section 24 comes into force.”

Clause 120, as amended, carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 121 to 128 inclusive carried on division.

On Clause 129,

Kelly Block moved, — That Bill C-22, in Clause 129, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 163 with the following:

“— except for the words “other than in the definition “Installation State” and subparagraphs 9(1)(b.1)(i) and (b.2)(i) and 9(4)(b)(i) and (c)(i) of the English version — “nuclear material”, “nucle””

(b) replacing line 10 on page 163 with the following:

“9(1)(b)(iii) or (iv) or paragraph 9(1)(b.1) or (b.2) — subsections 9(2) and (3),”

“tion”, “Installation State”, the words “other than in the definition “Installation State” and subparagraphs 9(1)(b.1)(i) and (b.2)(i) and 9(4)(b)(i) and (c)(i) of the English”

(d) replacing line 31 on page 163 with the following:

“paragraphs 9(1)(b.1) to (c) — when the combination is”

(e) replacing line 33 on page 163 with the following:

“subparagraph 9(1)(b)(iii) or (iv), paragraph 9(1)(b.1) or (b.2) — subsec-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kelly Block and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.

Clause 129, as amended, carried on division.

Schedule 1 carried on division.

Schedule 2 carried on division.

Schedule 3 carried on division.

Schedule 4 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the Committee rescind its decision to adopt Clause 51 as amended.

The Committee reverted back to Clause 51.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the Committee amends Clause 51 by replacing in the French version of the amendment the following paragraphs:

“Que le projet de loi C-22, à l’article 51, soit modifié par substitution, à la ligne 36, page 56, de ce qui suit :

activité concrète — y compris les activités concrètes qui lui sont accessoires —qui remplit les conditions » with

“Que le projet de loi C-22, à l’article 51, soit modifié par substitution, à la ligne 12, page 57, de ce qui suit :

Elle comprend les activités concrètes qui sont accessoires à l'activité concrète qui remplit ces conditions”

By unanimous consent, Clause 51, as amended, carried.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the Committee rescind its decision to adopt Clause 87 as amended.

The Committee reverted back to Clause 87.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the Committee amends Clause 87 by replacing in the French version of the amendment the following paragraphs:

“ Que le projet de loi C-22, à l’article 87, soit modifié par substitution, à la ligne 22, page 91, de ce qui suit :

activité concrète — y compris les activités concrètes qui lui sont accessoires —qui remplit les conditions” with

“Que le projet de loi C-22, à l’article 87, soit modifié par substitution, à la ligne 37, page 91, de ce qui suit :

Elle comprend les activités concrètes qui sont accessoires à l'activité concrète qui remplit ces conditions”

By unanimous consent, Clause 87, as amended, carried.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried on division.

The Title carried on division.

The Bill, as amended, carried on division.

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

ORDERED, — That Bill C-22, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 12:01 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Rémi Bourgault
Clerk of the Committee

2014/06/18 11:07 a.m.