I will not go on too long in my opening remarks, to make sure there is lots of time for the committee's questions.
Before I begin, let me congratulate the chair and all members of the finance committee for their work over the past few months on the annual pre-budget consultations. Along with my own consultations as the Minister of Finance, the finance committee's pre-budget consultation helps ensure that Canadians have the chance to make their voices heard. Recommendations flowing from this committee's hearings always inform and influence the ultimate budget content. I urge the finance committee to conclude its work. I know you're in the process of preparing your report, and I look forward to receiving and reviewing your findings.
First, however, I want to urge the committee to study and adopt Bill , the Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act.
The Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act is one of the many measures the Conservative government has taken to address the global economic crisis. The act contains many provisions that are key to Budget 2010 and is thus an important part of Canada's Economic Action Plan, which helps create jobs and contributes to economic growth from coast to coast.
Since July 2009, nearly 430,000 net new jobs have been created in Canada. Of those, 380,000 are full-time jobs. The IMF and the OECD both project Canada to lead the G-7 in economic growth over the next five years; we're not alone in recognizing the strength of the Canadian economy. The Economist magazine calls Canada an economic star; the OECD says “Canada looks good—it shines, actually”.
Our government is on the right track on the economy and for Canadian families. However, as we have said all along, the global economic recovery remains fragile. That's why we must continue to implement Canada's economic action plan and move forward. Bill , the Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, does precisely that, moving forward to ensure that our economy continues to stay on track.
The act includes measures to help Canadian families get ahead: by indexing the working income tax benefit, or WITB; by allowing RRSP proceeds to be transferred to an RDSP, a registered disability savings plan, on a tax-deferred basis; by allowing a 10-year carry-forward for RDSP grants and bonds; by further strengthening federally regulated pension plans; by measures to cut red tape, helping registered charities with disbursement quota reform, allowing taxpayers to request online notices from the Canada Revenue Agency, reducing the paperwork burden for taxpayers; by measures to close down tax loopholes, such as better targeting of tax incentives for employee stock options and addressing aggressive tax planning relating to TFSAs or tax-free savings accounts; by measures to protect consumers, such as improving the complaint process for consumers when dealing with the financial services industry; and finally, measures to promote clean energy, such as expanding access to accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation.
Clearly the Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act introduces key measures to support Canada's economic recovery. I would like to highlight a few of the aforementioned measures—only a few—starting with closing tax loopholes.
Our Conservative government understands that ending tax loopholes is necessary to ensure that all taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes.
In order to broaden this objective, measures were announced in Budget 2010 and are included in this act regarding the taxation of employee stock options. For instance, changes proposed to the taxation of stock option cash outs will address aggressive tax planning strategies. These strategies have enabled some individuals and businesses to avoid paying taxes on a portion of stock-based compensation.
I'm happy to report that this move in support of fairness has been welcomed even by business. I can't say that the closing of these tax options has been uniformly welcomed by business, because I have heard some concerns expressed by some businesses about the fact that we are taking away a rather lucrative tax option that has been exercised by some. But I think most of the business community accept the fact that we need to have a level playing field and that the key is lower taxes overall, not special tax options that certain groups can take advantage of.
In fact, that view is reflected by John Manley, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Here's the way he put it. He said:
||...our members have always felt that if you get the system right everybody's going to benefit. ...if you said to them, would you rather have some special treatment on options or would you rather have very competitive corporate income tax rates, they would say we will take the latter, thank you very much. Keep the rates as low as you can. Forget any special loopholes. ...having a fair tax system is going to be the top priority.
Mr. Chair, before I conclude, I would like to address important measures in Bill related to the RDSP. One of the most important actions our government has taken in support of persons with disabilities has been the creation of the registered disability savings plan. The RDSP helps parents and family members provide long-term financial security for a severely disabled child.
The Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act includes two proposals to further improve the RDSP.
Under the current rules for RRSPs and RRIFs, a deceased individual's RRSP or RRIF proceeds may be transferred on a tax-free basis to the registered retirement savings plan or income fund of a financially dependent infirm child or grandchild. To give parents and grandparents more flexibility in providing for a disabled child's long-term financial security, Bill proposes to allow a deceased individual's RRSP or RRIF proceeds to be transferred on a tax-free basis to a financially dependent infirm child's or grandchild's RDSP as well.
The second improvement to the RDSP would allow a ten-year carry-forward of Canada disability savings grant and Canada disability savings bond entitlements in an RDSP. Colleagues, this recognizes the fact that many families of children with disabilities may not be able to contribute regularly to their plan. This will give them more opportunity over a longer period of time to top up those RDSPs.
Both proposed changes will further ensure that RDSPs give Canadian families peace of mind, helping them save for the long-term financial security of a loved one with a disability.
Tina Di Vito, director of retirement strategies at BMO Financial Group, called the changes fantastic measures, adding:
||...the benefit will be huge. This will allow more people with disabilities to get the care they need. With the RDSP, Canada is leading the world in showing how smart policy can help provide financial security and independence for people with disabilities.
Mr. Chair, in summary, this act will help ensure that the Canadian economy continues to move in the right direction. With support from Canada's economic action plan, the Canadian economy has started to recover. We must continue to provide the steady guidance that has allowed Canada to continue on the right track to recovery.
With that, I invite the questions of the committee.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm happy to have the first opportunity, after a year, to talk to the Minister of Finance for more than two 35-second periods. I'm referring to Question Period in the House of Commons.
Minister, you said that you look forward to receiving our report on pre-budget consultations. The report has actually already been made public, so you can read it now.
I would like to talk a bit about what I'm really pleased with, that is, your plan to set up a securities commission, which you mention in your budget. You probably know that, in June 2010, people like Paul Volcker, Gary Cohn, of Goldman Sachs, and Mary Shapiro came to Montreal for a meeting of the International Organization of Securities Commissions. Last week, you said that the agreement with China was actually signed by the securities commissions of Quebec and other provinces.
It seems to me, however, that the support of important institutions, such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, is rapidly fading. This morning's issue of the National Post contained a very good article by Mr. McIntosh.
The transition plan you released on July 12 stated that the provinces would sign a development agreement by September 2010.The annual report you submitted on October 5 stated that the agreement would be signed in fall 2010. Then, on October 8, a statement was issued saying that there was no need for that agreement.
Shouldn't you should just admit that you're giving up on the initiative.
I understand that, but I don't want you to take up all my time.
You said that membership is voluntary. In the Attorney General of Canada's factum to the Quebec Court of Appeal, your lawyers state that the government's objective is to create a Canadian securities regulatory body. Further on, the document clearly states that the progressive implementation shows the government's willingness to set up a single regulatory body. I think that your sales pitch doesn't hold water. You say that this is how things will turn out and that the opting in is a lock-in.
Are you not merely announcing that the federal government will take control of matters and then, as people will see, it will bulldoze ahead, end of story? If your bill passes, what will become of passports issued by Quebec, Alberta and other non-member provinces? Do you intend to force billers in Canada to switch to a passport system, and will your program result in two passport systems?
What would have happened when the merging took place, when the Montreal Exchange was taken over, when the Autorité des marchés financiers approved the transaction, but stated that there will be no substantial changes unless they are greenlit by that body? If everything becomes centralized in Toronto, how do you expect Quebec financial markets to remain independent?
As we've just witnessed, I am up against a seasoned parliamentarian who can suck up all the oxygen in the room along with our seven minutes, but I will nonetheless begin with a comment reflecting one of his English remarks.
The minister says that Canada is the only industrialized country without a national securities regulator. I would point out to my colleague, the finance minister, that Canada also is the only industrialized country without a national education minister, and there's a good reason for that. It goes back way before 1935, which is the date he cites. It goes right back to the picture showing the Fathers of Confederation. We have a confederal deal in this country, and it's galling to hear the minister say it's in the spirit of cooperative federalism that he's seeking to occupy a sphere that will empty out an important part of the Quebec economy, will move a lot of experts out of the province, and won't produce any results.
All we have to do is look at what happened to the people whose money was invested with Earl Jones. He was on nobody's radar screen; he was a fraudster and was not regulated. You know where he was being spotted and tracked? It was at the Royal Bank of Canada, the Beaconsfield branch in Quebec. You know what happened? People were defrauded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars and all these lovely federal structures—because the federal government is in charge of chartered banks—did nothing. There are official documents in the court record of the Earl Jones case, written by the people at the Royal Bank, the Beaconsfield branch, showing that they knew exactly what was going on. They wrote to him about it. And do you know what those people got? Zero. Do you know what the federal government did? Zero.
So instead of getting into a mode where he decides he knows how to do what the confederal deal left with the provinces since the beginning and what they know how to do, why doesn't he start taking care of the stuff that Confederation left to him, which is to take care of the chartered banks and people like Earl Jones?
Mr. Chairman, the minister is fond of across-the-board tax cuts.
The approach used by the Conservatives aims to reduce taxes for all businesses in the same way. There is, however, an obvious problem that the Minister knows well. I'm talking about the fact that, since the forest or the manufacturing industry made no profits and had not, consequently, paid taxes, they could not benefit from the tens of billions of dollars in across-the-board tax cuts that the government granted.
I would like the Minister to share his thoughts with us and to tell us whether he has changed his mind. I want to know if he is beginning to realize that building a diverse and balanced economy, something we have been working on diligently since the Second World War, has required a visionary government that appreciates the sheer size of the country and the need to focus on sectors that are more productive, create more jobs and are more future-oriented, such as the environment? Or will he keep limiting his across-the-board tax reduction strategy to the biggest, most profitable companies.
I'm sure that you're going to be shocked to actually hear a question that's relevant to what we're supposed to be discussing here today, and that's Bill .
Thank you, Minister, for coming. I appreciate your taking time to come here today.
Reflecting on Bill , there are a number of issues and measures in C-47 that follow on the path this government has taken, which has been to help job creators, and to help job seekers, which is the one I would like to ask a question about. That's the working income tax benefit that was in Budget 2007 originally. It was very forward thinking. It was doubled in 2009 and was applauded by many, such as the Caledon Institute, which suggested that it was a welcome addition to Canadian social policy and filled the long-recognized gap in Canada's income security system, and the United Way, which reflected that it's a positive change that will help to improve the situation of low-income families.
Personally, I don't think enough people, specifically those people who don't fit into that income bracket, actually understand what this has done. We have taken nearly a million people completely off the tax rolls with tax reductions, but WITB allows them to take part in the economy.
Perhaps you could explain what in Bill we've done to continue that and extend that?
Thank you for the question.
WITB, which is a lovely acronym, given that I represent Whitby—Oshawa in the House of Commons, is an important program. It is a program that was looked at over the years by others, but it wasn't implemented. What it's designed to do is help people who are relying on social benefits, social assistance, to get back into the workforce, because we had a system that discouraged people from doing that.
It was true to say that there was very little and sometimes no advantage to getting off social assistance and getting a job. That is self-defeating, particularly given the demographic challenge we are facing in Canada going forward.
These are a lot of people. About 1.5 million individuals and families benefit from WITB annually. We brought it in for Budget 2007. We doubled the tax relief in Budget 2009. In this bill, which comes out of this year's budget of 2010, we want to index certain personal income tax and benefits amounts to inflation under the Consumer Price Index. That would be done on an annual basis.
Assuming that this legislation gets royal assent, WITB amounts payable in 2010 and subsequent years will be indexed to inflation on an annual basis, which will provide some extra dollars to Canadian families that need it most and will further encourage able-bodied people and others, who perhaps have some disabilities, if they are able to join the workforce, to do that.
That's a very nice question, yes. I thank the member from Burlington for that very helpful question.
I should say, generally, to members of the committee that we're having, as you know, ongoing pension discussions with the provinces and territories. The federal government is responsible for only about 10% of the pension plans in Canada. This is an area in which we obviously need to work together, and I look forward to further discussions when we meet together as finance ministers around December 20 in Alberta.
In this particular bill, as a result of the extensive consultations led by my parliamentary secretary, Mr. Menzies, several things are being done. They include authorizing the Minister of Finance to designate an entity for the purpose of receiving, holding, and disbursing the pension benefit credits of people who cannot be located by their pension plan; permitting information to be provided in electronic form; and requiring spousal consent before the transfer of pension benefit credits to a retirement savings plan. Those are some of the specifics.
Minister, tax-free savings accounts: good idea, poorly executed. This act, Bill , has to now deal with deliberate over-contributions, prohibited investments, income attributed to non-qualified investments, withdrawals of deliberate over-contributions, prohibited investments, non-qualified investments, swap transactions, related investment income, and effective prohibited asset transfer from TFSA accounts to other accounts.
Considering it was such a simple plan—a good plan—but so badly executed and having so many amendments, what have we done to make sure this never happens again, so that our tax act doesn't become even more complex than it already is?
Good afternoon, Minister. Restoring a balanced budget is certainly a tall order. The Parliamentary Budget Officer doesn't believe that a balance can be achieved by 2015. We talked about this earlier.
I have been an MP since 2004. That's when I first introduced myself. At that time, the Liberals were in power. Plenty of people were blowing the whistle on the Barbados tax haven, which had been sanctioned by that Liberal government and by Paul Martin, whose shipping company was registered in Barbados. According to my information, in 2004, 27 billion Canadian dollars were invested in Barbados by people wishing to avoid paying taxes in Canada. This was seen as unfair. My information states that, in 2009, Canadian investments in Barbados totalled $41 billion.
Could you tell me how much tax money the government loses because of these investments? Why is your government, which is not Liberal, maintaining the tax exemption Paul Martin agreed to out of what could be seen as personal interest?
I have an additional question, if there's time.
My colleague Mr. Szabo introduced the subject of the tax-free savings account and the changes in Bill . But I don't feel he provided an appropriate amount of time for you to elaborate on the changes that are taking place in that respect.
I'm sure Canadians are becoming aware of the fact that as a Conservative government we've cut taxes in a hundred different areas, in every form of tax that the government collects: personal, consumption, business, and excise.
The tax-free savings account was a landmark change for Canadians. I note that Peter Aceto, the chief executive officer of ING Direct Canada, is known to say:
||We think TFSAs are a great gift the government has given Canadians to help them save.... It's the most important thing that's happened in that regard since RRSPs 50 years ago.
Bill C-47 does address some of the abuses that were taking place in the last year. I am wondering if you could elaborate further for the committee on what those changes are.
Minister, you said earlier today that you disagree with the Economist Intelligence Unit and you disagree with Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney. Both the Economist Intelligence Unit and Governor Carney have spoken of the Canadian housing bubble and the risk that overinflated housing prices represent to Canada.
You also aborted the work being done within the Department of Finance, the Bank of Canada, OSFI, and CDIC to form a financial stability committee. As you said earlier today, you don't believe there's a housing bubble in Canada.
How can Canadians trust your judgment now when you say there's no housing bubble? In 2006, you were the minister who brought in zero down, 40-year mortgages, which led to record high Canadian household debt levels.
Thank you for that leading question.
What I'm hearing is that we don't need any big new spending plans, that they appreciate the fact that our economic performance in Canada has certainly been better than that of our neighbour, the United States, and other industrialized countries. There is some concern about making sure the recovery keeps going, and the economic action plan is recognized as a useful plan to keep the economy going. There's a desire to get back to balanced budgets, and we will stay the course that we set out previously, including in the fall economic update, to get to a balanced budget by 2015-16.
I think one of the lessons of this economic crisis we've been going through is that people recognize the importance of sovereign states like Canada making sure we keep our fiscal house, our books, in order, so that when difficult times come we're able to take action and not get into very difficult situations, as some other countries have.
I have three more members who wish to ask questions, including me. I want to ask about the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. I'm asking because it is still an issue that I deal with in Alberta, particularly with the finance minister of Alberta, with respect to health transfers. I'm not sure if the person who can best respond to this is at the table. But it is still in contention. The finance minister of Alberta has written to me, to Mr. Menzies, and to the Minister of Finance with respect to the health care transfers. The argument is that Alberta is currently receiving less than it ought to under the health care transfers.
At present, it's a combination of cash and tax points, and you obviously know that. The health care accord runs until 2014. After the expiry of that accord, our government has committed to fund equal per capita cash transfers to all provinces. The argument by the Minister of Finance of Alberta is that the change in the equalization formula after the 2004 health care accord changed the framework. This in fact changed the amount that Ontario would have received as a cash portion for its health care transfer, but this was not done for the Province of Alberta.
They argue that there was a change made because Ontario became a have-not province under the equalization formula. As a result of this change, Ontario is getting more cash per person than Alberta. I've asked this question before and I've gotten responses saying that this is not the case. But the provincial government is still pushing this fairly aggressively. I think it's my responsibility as an Alberta MP to provide as detailed a response as I can to this concern.
It is a pleasure to meet with the finance officials again. I would like to know whether they can describe the current efforts being made to reduce the opportunities for Canadians to use tax havens, which, for lack of a better term, I will call opaque jurisdictions. According to the OECD, the figure is in the neighbourhood of $6,000 billion, or $6 trillion, which, in proper French, would be “6 billions”. That can lead to confusion here, in Canada, because the English “billion” is not the same thing; the difference is a factor of 1,000, so it can be a bit complicated. The Tax Justice Network in the U.K. estimates that the amount of money being hidden in these opaque jurisdictions is more along the lines of $10,000 billion.
What are we doing in terms of strictly enforcing legislation? Do we need more resources? Should we do something on that front?
Thank you for that question.
As you may know, the OECD and the G-20 have strongly supported the introduction and use of tax information exchange agreements to ensure that countries can be informed about income that their residents and citizens may have in other jurisdictions. To that end, and even before the attention of the G-20 on the issue, the Government of Canada was proactive and in 2007 introduced a policy that provided incentives for countries to enter into tax information exchange agreements with Canada, as well as disincentives for refusing to do so after having been invited to do so, and introduced as a policy, in addition to the tax information exchange agreements that are particular to information exchange, that all of Canada's new tax treaties and renegotiations of existing tax treaties from that point hence would be required to include the OECD standard language on the exchange of tax information.
That's a policy that Canada has pursued vigorously. Canada has signed some 11 tax information exchange agreements so far and is under negotiation with another 14. We've also updated some treaties, perhaps most notably with the country of Switzerland, and we now have the latest OECD-approved language for tax information exchange for Switzerland. The government sees this as a very important tool for permitting tax information exchange because, as the minister said, if Canadians are of the view that they could in the past have hidden income in other jurisdictions, they will be disabused of that in the near future.
I'm not sure anymore what language we're supposed to be speaking.
A voice: Italian.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Come on!
Mr. Lalonde, please feel comfortable to speak whatever language.... I struggle with languages all the time. I speak three of them and not one of them perfectly. I think it's better off if you can speak English and tell us what you have to tell us, especially in technical terms, so don't get intimidated, please.
I have a question, and it is the same question I asked the Minister of Finance. I have a constituent who has a bigger problem than what language he speaks. It's based on the fact that he wants to open up a registered disability savings plan, but he can't because CRA has not accepted his disability form or his disability tax credit.
It's fine that this particular taxpayer has gotten some press and some media, and the Minister of Finance has said there's a willingness to change. So my first question would be, is there a willingness by the bureaucracy to change this anomaly, or whatever you want to call it, this oversight?
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Earlier I asked the minister a policy question about tax shelters, and I got a policy-based answer. I brought up Barbados, specifically, where, according to my figures, Canadians have invested $41 billion. As you know, pursuant to legislation passed under the Liberal government, money invested in Barbados is exempt from Canadian taxes.
Now I want an answer based on fact. If you consider just that $41 billion invested in Barbados, how much tax income would we recover if that amount had been invested in Canada?
Can you explain your arguments in favour of that policy? Is there a net benefit for Canada in allowing these tax-exempt investments? It is beyond me. Could you tell me what the benefits are of giving companies that kind of tax exemption?
I am not sure which of you is familiar with those files, but surely one or two of you would know the answers.
Your question stems in large part from Canada's historical position on tax treaties and how Canada taxes the income of foreign affiliates of Canadian corporations that carry on active businesses in foreign countries.
I started with the department in 1982, so for at least some 28 years the policy of the department has been that Canada does not tax the dividends paid out of the active business income of foreign affiliates of Canadian corporations that carry on active businesses in jurisdictions with which Canada has a tax treaty. It recognizes that the income in the foreign jurisdiction is earned by a corporation resident in the foreign jurisdiction, and it's up to the foreign jurisdiction to tax that corporation. If there were no tax treaty, the income would be taxable by Canada, but a foreign tax credit would be allowed.
Some were of the view years ago that the policy behind the tax exemption for exempt surplus paid from offshore jurisdictions to the Canadian parent companies was to implement a simplified foreign tax credit. As Canada and other countries reduced their income tax rates, there were many circumstances where other countries, either at the time we negotiated the treaties or subsequently, had lower tax rates than Canada. So it became apparent that we could not look to that as being an underlying policy for our exempt surplus or the ability of foreign affiliates of Canadian corporations to pay tax-free dividends to their Canadian parents.
That policy became very clear in the lead-up to the 2007 budget. As the minister indicated, the key to this isn't so much about telling other countries how much they should tax corporations that carry on business in their jurisdictions and are resident in their jurisdictions, but rather about ensuring that if you are going to provide exempt surplus for dividends paid by those corporations, we should extract a quid pro quo from the countries in which they operate.
That is the essence behind the tax information exchange agreement policy I described earlier that was introduced in 2007. The government indicated that if a country enters into a tax information exchange agreement with Canada, we will provide exempt surplus to the foreign affiliates of Canadian corporations that carry on active businesses in those countries. If after having been invited to enter into a TIEA a country refuses to do so, not only will the exempt surplus not be provided, but we will tax those corporations on an accrual basis.
It's a good thing question period is coming.
Gentlemen, I had the opportunity to attend the briefing that officials gave when Bill first came out. As far as I recall, there were very few questions, and that I think was a credit to the work that was done by the officials, to be there, to be prepared, and to answer whatever questions there were.
On the TFSA, the tax-free savings accounts--and you may know that I asked the minister about that--this is a very straightforward, understandable intent, to be able to set up an account in which the income from that will not be subject to taxation, subject to certain limits per year. But the number of amendments, the scope of the amendments that have been proposed in Bill with regard to over-contributions, prohibited investments, attributed income, non-qualifying investments, etc.... It's a fair bit, and it strikes me that when you see all of these things...this was a very sloppy job, in my opinion.
I would have thought that any program worth its salt would have had a rigorous review, due diligence, and a sign-off by everybody who touches this thing. Did that happen?
You're looking into some older history, and that's why Mr. Wach is not responding, but I was at the department at the time when that was being developed.
It was a difficult balance to be presented. We had some existing registered plans, for example, the RRSP, the RDSP--registered disability savings plan. We also had deferred profit savings plans and other plans of that sort. In general, there are a series of qualified investments for those measures, and there was a policy decision made to extend the same list of qualified investments to the RDSP.
Now, it became apparent after the TFSA was put in place that some fairly aggressive transactions were being proposed to try to maximize the amount of income showing up in the TFSA. As the minister indicated in the press release that introduced the measures, the government will still be taking a close look at some of these transactions under the general anti-avoidance rule. So no, I wouldn't say it was a sloppy attempt at it. I think it was surprising, the reaction that the tax community responded with in terms of trying to squeeze the most possible out of the TFSA, and the government reacted quickly when it became apparent that some Canadians were willing to do so.
Okay, let's leave it at us tightening up something.
On the Bank Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act, we're going to create a new external complaints body for financial institutions. We already have others, and it could be argued that maybe we have too many people involved in this. But that's not my concern.
My concern is that we have matters such as Internet spam. It costs $130 billion a year around the world. Canada is ranked number five in total spam occurrences. There are about nine billion spams a day. We're ranked number five, so we have a big number there. The government is probably looking for ways in which we might be able to tighten up there as well.
Since we have this act, we can deal with domestic things. A big part of the problem is due to international sources that are beyond the reach of our legislation. Having said that, we also have tax treaties and information-sharing agreements with over 90 countries around the world. Was it ever considered that if we're going to have a new complaints commission for banks--because a lot of this stuff has to do with people representing themselves as banks and trying to fish and harvest--that it would have a mandate to go beyond simply consumer complaints against financial institutions, which have basically told consumers that there is nothing they can do, and that we really have to leave it at that?
Yes. If the committee agrees by unanimous consent, we can apply this recorded vote to all of the clauses up to clause 199, and it will be shown in the record.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
(Clauses 3 to 199 inclusive agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall the short title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Merci, colleagues.
I want to thank the officials very much for being with us here today. Thank you for your time.
If you have anything further for the committee, please submit it to the chair. I will ensure all members get it.
Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.