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
Liberal
- Joël Lightbound, Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member
- Jennifer O'Connell, Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member
- Deborah Schulte, Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member
Conservative
NDP
Tom Kmiec moved, — That, considering the statement in the Ministers’ mandate letters from the Prime Minister that Ministers be held accountable to parliamentary committees, the Committee request that the Minister of Finance appear before the Committee on a date no later than December 11, 2018, for a briefing on the Government’s 2018 Fall Economic Update; and that this meeting be televised.
After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Kerry Diotte, Peter Julian, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre — 4;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Michael V. McLeod, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Peter Julian moved, — That notwithstanding the motion passed by the Standing Committee on Finance on October 30, 2018, the Committee, recognizing the extensive size and complexity of Bill C-86, acknowledge the need for a minimal discussion of proposed amendments and clauses irrespective of whether they fall before or after 9 p.m. on November 20, 2018; and that the Committee, through its Chair, adjust its meeting schedule to provide the time required to facilitate such discussion.
After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Kerry Diotte, Peter Julian, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre — 4;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Michael V. McLeod, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Lori Straznicky, Richard Stuart, Blaine Langdon, Pierre Mercille, Mark Schaan, Khurso Saeedi, Eric Grant, Barbara Moran, Sebastien St-Arnaud, Charles Philippe Rochon, Louisa Pand and Deirdre Kent answered questions.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.
By unanimous consent, the Chair called Clause 416.
On Clause 416,
Sheila Malcolmson moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 416, be amended(a) by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 342 with the following:
“of equal value and then to maintain pay equity”
(b) by adding after line 10 on page 342 the following:
“(2) The purpose of this Act will be achieved by requiring employers to establish pay equity plans and by prohibiting employers and bargaining agents from agreeing to compensation practices that contravene this Act. ”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Sheila Malcolmson — 1;
NAYS: Kerry Diotte, Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Tom Kmiec, Michael V. McLeod, Pierre Poilievre, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 8.
“of equal value and then to maintain pay equity”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
“2.1 No employer, employee organization, trade union or member of a pay equity committee may act in bad faith or in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner or demonstrate gross negligence while exercising their powers or performing their duties and functions under this Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
(a) adding after line 34 on page 343 the following:
“(c.1) a person employed by an employer referred to in paragraph (2)(e.1), other than
(i) a person employed under a program designated by the employer as a student employment program, or
(ii) a student employed by the employer solely during the student’s vacation periods;”
(b) adding after line 28 on page 345 the following:
“(e.1) a corporation established to perform any duty or function on behalf of the Government of Canada, other than a corporation named in Schedule IV or V of the Financial Administration Act;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Kerry Diotte, Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Tom Kmiec, Sheila Malcolmson, Michael V. McLeod, Pierre Poilievre, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 9;
NAYS: — 0.
(a) by adding after line 2 on page 350 the following:
“(2) The employer must provide a copy of the pay equity plan to the Pay Equity Commissioner within 15 days after its completion.”
(b) by adding after line 5 on page 350 the following:
“(2) The group of employers must provide a copy of the pay equity plan to the Pay Equity Commissioner within 15 days after its completion.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Sheila Malcolmson — 1;
NAYS: Kerry Diotte, Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Tom Kmiec, Michael V. McLeod, Pierre Poilievre, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 8.
“(2) Every employer must ensure that the pay equity plan does not discriminate on the basis of gender and that it is applied in a gender neutral way.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
(a) by replacing line 10 on page 350 with the following:
“(ii) to establish a pay”
(b) by replacing lines 26 to 30 on page 350 with the following:
“(b) setting out the requirements for the committee’s membership; and
(c) informing its employees of their right to desig-”
(c) by replacing line 6 on page 351 with the following:
“(ii) to establish a pay”
(d) by replacing lines 26 to 30 on page 351 with the following:
“(c) setting out the requirements for the committee’s membership; and
(d) informing the employer’s employees of their”
(e) by replacing line 1 on page 352 with the following:
“establish a pay equity com-”
(f) by replacing lines 13 to 16 on page 352 with the following:
“be, must establish a pay equity committee.”
(g) by replacing line 22 on page 352 with the following:
“establish, must establish a pay”
(h) by replacing lines 31 to 35 on page 352 with the following:
“tion 18 to have 10 to 99 employees, must establish a pay equity committee.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“group counts as a vote only if it is a majority vote. If the members who represent employees cannot, as a group, reach a majority decision on a matter, that group for-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
(a) by replacing line 17 on page 355 with the following:
“mittee with any information in the employer’s possession or control”
(b) by deleting line 27 on page 355 to line 2 on page 356.
(c) by replacing line 38 on page 382 with the following:
“72 Sections 20 to 23 apply in respect of a pay equity com-”
(d) by replacing line 7 on page 417 with the following:
“has contravened an order of the Pay”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
(a) by replacing line 13 on page 363 with the following:
“section 49 or the regression line method set out in section 50.”
(b) by replacing lines 2 to 17 on page 366 with the following:
“may be, that uses the regression line method of comparison of compensation must apply the following rules:
(a) a male regression line must be established for the predominantly male job classes;
(b) the compensation associated with a predominantly female job class is to be increased if the predominantly female job class is located below the male regression line;
(c) if the compensation associated with a predominantly female job class is to be increased, the increase is”
(c) by deleting lines 29 to 33 on page 366.
(d) by replacing line 27 on page 431 with the following:
“purpose of paragraph 49(1)(d);”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived.
“lates have 90 days following the day on which it is posted”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived.
“version of the pay equity plan no later than the second an-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived.
(a) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 371 with the following:
“with subsection 55(1), on the day that is 18 months after the date on which the employer be-”
(b) by replacing line 29 on page 371 with the following:
“ployers, on the day that is 18 months after the”
(c) by replacing line 41 on page 371 with the following:
“under subsection (1), more than 2% of the employer’s”
(d) by replacing line 27 on page 372 with the following:
“than 2% of the employer’s payroll for the year that”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived.
(a) by replacing line 38 on page 372 with the following:
“(i) the day after the fifth anniversary of the date re-”
(b) by replacing line 4 on page 373 with the following:
“(i) the day after the fifth anniversary of the date”
(c) by replacing line 8 on page 373 with the following:
“(ii) the day after the fifth anniversary of the”
(d) by replacing line 48 on page 375 with the following:
“fifth anniversary of the date referred to in”
(e) by replacing line 13 on page 376 with the following:
“fifth anniversary of the date referred to in sub-”
(f) by replacing line 20 on page 376 with the following:
“day after the fifth anniversary of the date on”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived.
“payable on the day after the day on which the pay equity plan is posted in accordance with section 55.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived.
“part of it — or a corporation established to perform any duty or function on behalf of the Government of Canada, or any part of the corporation, other than a corporation named in Schedule IV or V of the Financial Administration Act — is leased or transferred by sale, merger or oth-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
“(c.1) each equity plan that the employer is required to establish;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived.
(a) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 415 with the following:
“149 (1) Any employee or bargaining agent that represents unionized employees to whom a pay equity plan relates that has reasonable grounds to believe that there has”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 35 on page 415 with the following:
“sued under this Act, and that is affected or is likely to be”
(c) by replacing line 14 on page 416 with the following:
“150 (1) Any employee or bargaining agent that represents unionized”
(d) by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 416 with the following:
“tions or a contravention, in relation to that plan, of an”
(e) by deleting lines 28 to 34 on page 416.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Sheila Malcolmson — 1;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Tom Kmiec, Michael V. McLeod, Pierre Poilievre, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 7.
At 10:47 a.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 11:32 a.m., the sitting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 416, as amended, carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 417 to 424 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 425,
Sheila Malcolmson moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 425, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 436 to line 1 on page 437 with the following:“40.2 The Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sheila Malcolmson and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Sheila Malcolmson — 1;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Tom Kmiec, Michael V. McLeod, Blake Richards, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 7.
Clause 425 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 426 to 440 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 2 to 16 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 17,
Pierre Poilievre moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 17, be amended(a) by deleting lines 27 to 31 on page 21.
(b) by deleting line 39 on page 21 to line 3 on page 22.
(c) by deleting line 21 on page 22 to line 7 on page 23.
(d) by replacing line 22 on page 23 with the following:
“(12) Subsections (1), (7) and (10) are deemed”
(e) by replacing line 30 on page 23 with the following:
“(13) Subsections (3), (6) and (11) are”
(f) by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 24.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Poilievre and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre, Blake Richards — 3;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Peter Julian, Michael V. McLeod, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 6.
(a) by replacing line 25 on page 22 with the following:
“votes any part of its resources to the direct”
(b) by replacing line 31 on page 22 with the following:
“any part of its resources to the direct support”
(c) by replacing line 4 on page 23 with the following:
“support of, or opposition to, any political par-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian — 1;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Tom Kmiec, Michael V. McLeod, Pierre Poilievre, Blake Richards, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 8.
Clause 17 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 18 and 19 carried on division severally.
On Clause 20,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 27 with the following:“rect support of, or opposition to, any politi-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 20 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 21 to 40 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 41 to 60 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 61 and 62 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 63,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 63, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 66 the following:“(c) if the cannabis product is a prescription cannabis drug, the consideration is deemed to be zero.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre — 3;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Michael V. McLeod, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 63 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 64 to 68 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 69 to 126 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 127 to 129 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 130 to 173 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 174 and 175 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 176 to 181 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 182,
Francesco Sorbara moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 182, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 6 and 7 on page 135 with the following:“(b) a right, or combination of rights, referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is subject to any agreement or ar-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Francesco Sorbara and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Clause 182, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 183,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 183, be amended(a) by replacing lines 24 to 26 on page 135 with the following:
“(a) the legal names, the dates of birth and the latest known address of each individual with significant control;
(b) the citizenship and jurisdiction of residence for tax purposes of”
(b) by adding after line 37 on page 135 the following:
“(g) an affidavit attesting to the truth of the information referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f).”
(c) by replacing line 6 on page 136 with the following:
“(3) If the corporation becomes aware of any change to the information”
(d) by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 136 with the following:
“ers, the shareholder shall reply accurately and completely within 15 days after the day on which he or she receives the request.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(6) A corporation that contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500,000.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
“their personal representatives and any prescribed person or entity, on sending to the corpora-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived.
“21.5 The Governor in Council may make regulations establishing a system of administrative monetary penalties applicable to contraventions of specified provisions of this Act or regulations and setting the amounts of those penalties.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived.
Clause 183 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 184 to 186 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 187 to 246 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 247,
Francesco Sorbara moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 247, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 173 with the following:“of a governing body or a steering committee of an association”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Francesco Sorbara and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
“(e) become a member of a governing body or a steering com-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Francesco Sorbara and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
(a) by adding after line 6 on page 176 the following:
“(2) The Registrar must engage exclusively in the duties and functions of his or her office under this Act and must not hold any other office or engage in any other employment for reward.”
(b) by adding after line 9 on page 176 the following:
“(2) The Chief Executive Officer must engage exclusively in the duties and functions of his or her office under this Act and must not hold any other office or engage in any other employment for reward.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Tom Kmiec and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 247, as amended, carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 248 to 286 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 287,
Francesco Sorbara moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 287, be amended(a) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 218 with the following:
“matico-musical works, of performer’s performances of such works, or of sound recordings embodying such works or performances; and”
(b) by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 218 with the following:
“other than as described in subsection 31(2), of performer’s performances of such works, or of sound recordings embodying such works or performances.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Francesco Sorbara and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 287, as amended, carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 288 to 302 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 303 to 313 inclusive carried on division severally.
Clause 314 carried on division.
On Clause 315,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 315, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 245 with the following:“external complaints body means the body corporate designated under”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Clause 315 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 316 to 328 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 329,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 329, be amended(a) by deleting line 18 on page 272 to line 21 on page 275.
(b) by replacing lines 28 to 42 on page 275 with the following:
“627.51 (1) The Minister shall designate a body corporate incorporated under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act to be the only external complaints body to deal with complaints referred to in paragraph 627.43(1)(a) that have not been resolved by its member institutions to the satisfaction of the persons who made the complaints.”
(c) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 276 with the following:
“tion 627.47.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 329 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 330 to 336 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 337
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Gabriel Ste-Marie for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-86, in Clause 337, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 307 the following:
“(2) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act in any way limits the application of provincial law relating to consumer protection.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gabriel Ste-Marie and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 4.
Clause 337 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 338 to 350 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 351,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 351, be amended(a) by replacing line 13 on page 310 with the following:
“351 (1) Subject to subsections (1.1) and (2), the provisions”
(b) by adding after line 17 on page 310 the following:
“(1.1) Sections 321 and 329 come into force on July 1, 2019, or on any earlier day that may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”
After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
Clause 351 carried on division.
On Clause 352,
Cathy McLeod moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 352, be amended by deleting lines 27 to 31 on page 310.The question was put on the amendment of Cathy McLeod and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
Clause 352 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 353 to 384 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 385 to 414 inclusive carried on division severally.
Clause 415 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 441 to 443 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 444 to 469 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 470,
Blake Richards moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 470, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 464 the following:“(3.1) Every employee is entitled to and shall be granted a leave of absence from employment of up to 12 weeks if the employee is the parent of a child who has died, including in cases of perinatal death.
(2) Paragraph 206.5(5)(b) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of subparagraph (i), by adding “or” at the end of subparagraph (ii) and by adding the following after subparagraph (ii):
(iii) in the case of leave under subsection (3.1), 12 weeks after the day on which the death occurs.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 4:05 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 4:10 p.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clause 470 was allowed to stand.
By unanimous consent, clauses 471 to 477 inclusive carried on division severally.
On new Clause 477.1,
Blake Richards moved, — That Bill C-86 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 467 the following new clause:“477.1 Subsection 210(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) Every employee who is entitled to bereavement leave under subsection (1) is entitled to such leave with pay at his regular rate of wages for his normal hours of work, and such pay shall for all purposes be deemed to be wages.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Blake Richards and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 478 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 479 to 513 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 514,
Blake Richards moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 514, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 493 with the following:“(2.1) The employee is entitled to the first five days of the leave”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Blake Richards and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre, Blake Richards — 4;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Michael V. McLeod, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 514 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 515 to 625 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 626 to 653 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 654 to 656 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 657,
Greg Fergus moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 657, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 570 with the following:“development assistance”, in which case, the Governor in Council must take into account, among other things, the most recent definition of “official development assistance” formulated by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 2.
After debate, Clause 657, as amended, carried on division.
After debate, Clause 658 carried on division.
On Clause 659,
Peter Julian moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 659, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 572 the following:“(3) For greater certainty, only sovereign loans that meet the requirements of official development assistance, as defined in section 3 of the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, are to be used in calculating Canada’s official development assistance contribution under that Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Julian and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“gations guaranteed under paragraph (a);”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 659, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 660 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 661 to 674 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 675 to 685 inclusive carried on division severally.
Clause 686 carried on division.
Clause 687 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 688 to 689 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 690,
Tom Kmiec moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 690, be amended(a) by replacing lines 7 to 9 on page 591 with the following:
“that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, or an immediate threat to marine safety or to the marine environment.
(1.1) Before making an interim order, the Minister of Transport shall consult with any person or organization that the Minister of Transport considers appropriate in the circumstances.”
(b) by replacing line 17 on page 591 with the following:
“(c) 14 days after the interim order is made or any”
(c) by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 591 with the following:
“riod of the interim order for a period of no more than one year after the end of the applicable period referred to in”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Tom Kmiec and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 6.
Clause 690 carried on division.
Clause 691 carried on division.
On Clause 692,
Tom Kmiec moved, — That Bill C-86, in Clause 692, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 593 the following:“(2.1) Before making an order under subsection (2), the Minister of Transport shall consult with any person or organization that the Minister of Transport considers appropriate in the circumstances.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Tom Kmiec and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
Clause 692 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, clauses 693 to 712 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, clauses 713 to 747 inclusive carried on division severally.
“(3.1) Every employee is entitled to and shall be granted a leave of absence from employment of up to 12 weeks if the employee is the parent of a child who has died, including in cases of perinatal death.
(2) Paragraph 206.5(5)(b) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of subparagraph (i), by adding “or” at the end of subparagraph (ii) and by adding the following after subparagraph (ii):
(iii) in the case of leave under subsection (3.1), 12 weeks after the day on which the death occurs.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Blake Richards and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre, Blake Richards — 4;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Michael V. McLeod, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 470 carried on division.
Schedule 1 carried on division.
Schedule 2 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 1, Short Title, carried on division.
The Title carried on division.
The Bill, as amended, carried on division.
The question: "Shall the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House?" was put and was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Michael V. McLeod, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 5;
NAYS: Peter Julian, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre, Blake Richards — 4.
It was agreed on division, — That the Committee order a reprint of the Bill, as amended, for the use of the House at report stage.
At 1:59 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 3:29 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Blake Richards moved, — That a letter be sent to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to suggest that they complete their study of supporting families after the loss of a child and that the Chair of the Committee present the report to the House prior to December 13, 2018.
After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Peter Julian, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre, Blake Richards — 4;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Peter Fragiskatos, Michael V. McLeod, Kim Rudd, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
At 6:00 p.m., by unanimous consent and pursuant to Standing Order 115(5), it was agreed that the Committee continue to sit.
It was agreed, — That, in relation to the pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2019 budget, members of the Committee submit their recommendations for the report to the Clerk by midnight, Pacific Time, on Thursday, November 29, 2018.
At 6:17 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.