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
- Kamal Khera, Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member
- Joël Lightbound, Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member
Conservative
Pierre Leblanc and Trevor McGowan made statements and, with Gervais Coulombe, Pierre Mercille and Shane Baddeley, answered questions.
The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 (Short Title), is postponed.
By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That Clauses 120 to 198 be postponed.
The Chair called Clause 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 13,
Tom Kmiec moved, — That Bill C-74, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 8 the following:“(b.1) is, directly or indirectly, from a property acquired by the individual under a transfer made under a decree, order or judgment of a competent tribunal, or under a written separation agreement, relating to a division of property in settlement of rights arising out of, or on the breakdown of, the individual's marriage or common-law partnership;”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Tom Kmiec and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“(5.1) Subsection 120.4(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) There shall be added to a specified individual’s tax payable under this Part for a taxation year the lesser of
(a) the highest individual percentage for the year multiplied by the individual’s split income for the year; and
(b) the appropriate percentage for the year of the source individual in respect of the specified individual multiplied by the individual’s split income for the year.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Tom Kmiec and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“(8) Subsections (1) to (7) apply to the 2019 and subsequent taxation years. For the 2019 taxation”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre-Luc Dusseault and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Dan Albas, Pierre-Luc Dusseault, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre — 4;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Raj Grewal, Michael V. McLeod, Jennifer O'Connell, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 13 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 14 to 18 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 19,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-74, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 25 on page 19 with the following:
“19 (1) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition adjusted net income in subsection 122.7(1) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(b) in computing that income, no amount were included under subparagraphs 56(1)(a)(iv) and (vii), paragraph 56(1)(q.1) or subsection 56(6), in respect of any gain from a disposition of property to which section 79 applies or in respect of a gain described in subsection 40(3.21); and”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Clause 19 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 20 to 68 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 69,
Pierre-Luc Dusseault moved, — That Bill C-74, in Clause 69, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 48 the following:“cannabis for medical purposes means cannabis that is intended to be sold for medical purposes under a licence or permit issued under the Cannabis Act. (cannabis à des fins médicales)”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre-Luc Dusseault and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Dan Albas, Pierre-Luc Dusseault, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre — 4;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Raj Grewal, Michael V. McLeod, Jennifer O'Connell, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also negatived:
That Bill C-74, in Clause 73, be amended(a) by adding after line 25 on page 55 the following:
“(iv) cannabis for medical purposes; or”
(b) by adding after line 12 on page 57 the following:
“(iv) cannabis for medical purposes; or”
(c) by adding after line 21 on page 57 the following:
“(iv) cannabis for medical purposes; or”
(d) by adding after line 26 on page 58 the following:
“(iv) cannabis for medical purposes; or”
(e) by adding after line 18 on page 60 the following:
“(iv) cannabis for medical purposes;”
(f) by adding after line 35 on page 65 the following:
“(ix) cannabis for medical purposes;”
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-74, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 50 with the following: “prescription cannabis drug means a cannabis product that is intended to be sold for medical purposes in accordance with the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Cannabis Act or a cannabis product”The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 69 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 70 to 72 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 73,
Pierre-Luc Dusseault moved, — That Bill C-74, in Clause 73, be amended(a) by replacing line 31 on page 60 with the following:
“duced in Canada, other than prescription cannabis drugs, at the time they are packaged in the”
(b) by replacing line 27 on page 61 with the following:
“ucts, other than prescription cannabis drugs, in the amount that is equal to the greater of”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre-Luc Dusseault and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 73 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 74 to 94 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 95,
Pierre-Luc Dusseault moved, — That Bill C-74, in Clause 95, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 78 with the following:“spirits, wine, tobacco products and cannabis products, other than prescription cannabis drugs,”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre-Luc Dusseault and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Dan Albas, Pierre-Luc Dusseault, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre — 4;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Raj Grewal, Michael V. McLeod, Jennifer O'Connell, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 95 carried on division.
Clause 96 carried on division.
On Clause 97,
Pierre-Luc Dusseault moved, — That Bill C-74, in Clause 97, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 78 with the following:“(b) cannabis products, other than prescription cannabis drugs, as defined in section 2 of the”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre-Luc Dusseault and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Dan Albas, Pierre-Luc Dusseault, Tom Kmiec, Pierre Poilievre — 4;
NAYS: Greg Fergus, Raj Grewal, Michael V. McLeod, Jennifer O'Connell, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 97 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 98 to 119 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 199 to 403 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 404,
Greg Fergus moved, — That Bill C-74, in Clause 404, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 11 on page 535 with the following:
“715.36 (1) After an organization has accepted the offer to negotiate according to the terms of the notice referred to in section 715.33, the prosecutor must take reasonable steps to inform any victim, or any third party that is acting on the victim’s behalf, that a remediation agreement may be entered into. ”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That consideration of Clauses 404 to 409 be postponed.
At 5:12 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.