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
The Chair presented the Third Report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. The Report was concurred in and reads as follows:
Your Subcommittee met on Monday, May 30, 2016, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendations:
1. That in relation to the motion of Guy Caron (May 19):
a) the Committee agree to amend the amendment of Steven MacKinnon (May 19), by replacing the words: “possibly include, subject to a full review of documents received to date: KPMG and CRA employees and independent experts; and” with the following words:
“That the list of witnesses include the following witnesses:
Independent experts:
André Lareau – Professor, Université Laval;
Alain Deneault – Professor, Université de Montréal;
Arthur Cockfield – Professor, Queen’s University;
Dennis Howlett – Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness;
a representative from the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA); and Michael Hamersley – Former Lawyer, KPMG LLP”;
b) the Committee agree to the amendment as amended; and
c) the Committee agree to the motion as amended, which reads as follows:
“That, considering the information heard so far regarding the tax avoidance scheme involving the Isle of Man and any negotiated settlement agreement offered to past or current clients of KPMG LLP, the Standing Committee on Finance extends its ongoing study;
That the list of witnesses include the following witnesses:
Independent experts:
André Lareau – Professor, Université Laval;
Alain Deneault – Professor, Université de Montréal;
Arthur Cockfield – Professor, Queen’s University;
Dennis Howlett – Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness;
a representative from the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA); and Michael Hamersley – Former Lawyer, KPMG LLP; and
That the Committee hold a supplementary meeting for the consideration of a report.”
2. That the Committee agree to the motion of Phil McColeman (May 26), as amended, which reads as follows : “That the Standing Committee on Finance invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) to appear on or before June 16th, 2016, for two hours, to provide testimony and answer questions on his recent reports.”
3. That the Committee agree to the motion of Steven MacKinnon (May 19), which reads as follows: “That the Committee invite Mark Machin, the new President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, as well as Heather Monroe-Blum, Chairperson of CPPIB’s Board of Directors, to appear as witnesses as soon as possible after the beginning of his mandate.”
4. That, in relation to the pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2017 federal budget:
a) the Committee adopt the following three (3) questions for written briefs:
“1. What federal measures would help Canadians generally – and such specific groups as the unemployed, Indigenous peoples, those with a disability and seniors – maximize, in the manner of their choosing, their contributions to the country’s economic growth? For example, what measures in relation to education and training, labour mobility, workplace accommodation, labour market information and personal taxes would be most helpful in supporting the country’s economic growth?
2. What federal actions would assist Canada’s businesses – in all regions and sectors – meet their expansion, innovation and prosperity goals, and thereby contribute to economic growth in the country? For example, what actions in relation to support for entrepreneurs, internal and international trade and investment, regional development agencies, taxation and business financing would help businesses maximize their contribution to Canada’s economic growth?
3. What federal measures would ensure that urban, rural and remote communities throughout Canada enable residents to make their desired contribution to the country’s economic growth and businesses to expand, prosper and serve domestic and international customers in order to contribute to growth? For example, what measures in relation to broadband and other types of infrastructure, arts, recreation, tourism and climate change adaptation would help communities to support residents and businesses as they seek to take advantage of opportunities and contribute to the nation’s economic growth?”
b) a news release be published on Friday, June 3, 2016, to launch the pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2017 federal budget; and
c) the Clerk provide the Committee with different options to consider in organizing hearings with witnesses and possible travel in Fall 2016.
The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.
The Chair called Clause 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive carried on division.
After debate, Clause 7 carried on division.
Clause 8 carried.
Clause 9 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 10 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 11 and 12 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 13 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 14 to 21 inclusive carried on division.
After debate, Clause 22 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 23 to 25 inclusive carried on division.
Clause 26 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 27 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 28 to 32 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 33,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-15, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 15 on page 33.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.
Clause 33 carried on division.
On Clause 34,
Guy Caron moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 15 on page 34 with the following:“34 (1) Paragraphs 125(1.1)(b) and (c) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(b) that proportion of 17.5% that the number of days in the taxation year that are in 2016 and 2017 is of the number of days in the taxation year,”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Guy Caron, Ron Liepert, Phil McColeman, Lisa Raitt — 4;
NAYS: Raj Grewal, Steven MacKinnon, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
“34 (1) Paragraphs 125(1.1)(c) and (d) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(c) that proportion of 17.75% that the number of days in the taxation year that are in 2017 is of the number of days in the taxation year,
(d) that proportion of 18.25% that the number of days in the taxation year that are in 2018 is of the number of days in the taxation year, and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Guy Caron, Ron Liepert, Phil McColeman, Lisa Raitt — 4;
NAYS: Raj Grewal, Steven MacKinnon, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 34 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Raj Grewal, Steven MacKinnon, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Francesco Sorbara — 5;
NAYS: Guy Caron, Ron Liepert, Phil McColeman, Lisa Raitt — 4.
On Clause 35,
Guy Caron moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25 on page 34 with the following:“a corporation after March 2016 and before 2022 (including, for greater certainty, an expense that is deemed by subsection 66(12.66) to be incurred before 2022) in conducting mining exploration activity from”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Guy Caron, Ron Liepert, Phil McColeman, Lisa Raitt — 4;
NAYS: Raj Grewal, Steven MacKinnon, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 35 carried on division.
After debate, Clause 36 carried on division.
Clause 37 carried on division.
Trevor McGowan answered questions.
On Clause 38,
Francesco Sorbara moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 30 on page 41 with the following:“time, a Canadian partnership), or”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Francesco Sorbara and it was agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, carried on division
By unanimous consent, Clauses 39 to 46 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 47,
Guy Caron moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 57 the following:“(3) Section 241 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4):
(4.01) The Minister shall, as soon as feasible after the end of each fiscal year, prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a report on the number of times taxpayer information for that year has been provided under subparagraph (4)(d)(xviii).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Guy Caron, Ron Liepert, Phil McColeman, Lisa Raitt — 4; NAYS: Raj Grewal, Steven MacKinnon, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 47 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 48 to 59 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 60,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-15, in Clause 60, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 69 the following:
“(e) other goods that have a life expectancy of more than one school year.”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
Clause 60 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 61 to 66 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 67,
Guy Caron moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 67, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 85 the following:“(5) Section 295 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (5):
(5.001) The Minister shall, as soon as feasible after the end of each fiscal year, prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a report on the number of times confidential information for that year has been provided under subparagraphs (5)(d)(iv.3), (iv.4), (v.1) and (ix).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Guy Caron, Ron Liepert, Phil McColeman, Lisa Raitt — 4;
NAYS: Raj Grewal, Steven MacKinnon, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 67 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 68 to 70 inclusive carried on division.
After debate, Clause 71 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 72 to 74 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 75,
Guy Caron moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 75, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 90 the following:“(5) Section 211 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):
(6.01) The Minister shall, as soon as feasible after the end of each fiscal year, prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a report on the number of times confidential information for that year has been provided under subparagraphs (6)(e)(iv.1), (iv.2), (v.1) and (ix).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Guy Caron, Ron Liepert, Phil McColeman, Lisa Raitt — 4;
NAYS: Raj Grewal, Steven MacKinnon, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 75 carried on division.
At 12:23 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 12:39 p.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 76 to 78 inclusive carried on division.
After debate, Clause 79 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 80 and 81 carried on division.
On Clause 82,
Phil McColeman moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 82, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 93 the following:“(2) Section 19 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(3) Regulations made under paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) shall not have the effect of reducing the imputed income to an amount less than the amount that would have been determined before the coming into force of section 82 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Phil McColeman and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Faith McIntyre made a statement and answered questions.
Clause 82 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 83 to 88 inclusive carried on division.
Clause 89 carried on division.
On new Clause 89.1,
“89.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 75.2:
75.3 The Minister shall, as soon as possible after being requested to do so by the Minister of National Defence, provide to a member suffering from a serious physical or mental health problem all the necessary information and guidance, and conduct any required assessment of the member, for the purpose of determining their eligibility for the services, assistance and compensation provided under this Act.”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
“89.1 Section 76 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
(4) For the purpose of determining a veteran's eligibilty for services, assistance and compensation provided under this Act, the Minister may, on request by the veteran, visit the veteran in their home.”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 90 to 106 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 107,
Guy Caron moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 100 with the following:“out in the regulations made under the Act that the person has not already provided for those purposes.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Guy Caron, Ron Liepert, Phil McColeman, Lisa Raitt — 4;
NAYS: Raj Grewal, Steven MacKinnon, Jennifer O'Connell, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Francesco Sorbara — 5.
Clause 107 carried on division.
Alexandra Dostal and Glenn R. Campbell answered questions.
By unanimous consent, after debate, Clauses 108 to 188 inclusive carried on division.
On new Clause 188.1,
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-15 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 154 the following new clause:
“188.1 Subsection 11(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(3) An application under subsection (2) is deemed to have been made by a person and approved on the day on which the person reached sixty-five years of age, where the information in support of the application has been made available to the Minister under this Act.
(3.1) The Minister shall take all necessary measures to obtain the information and, if the information is obtained, the Minister shall give written notice of the matter to the person before payment of the supplement commences.
(3.2) An applicant may withdraw an application for a supplement by giving a written notice of the withdrawal to the Minister at any time before payment of the supplement commences.
(3.3) If an application for a supplement is withdrawn under subsection (3.2), the withdrawn application shall not after that time be used for the purpose of determining the applicant’s eligibility for a supplement, and a new application for a supplement is not effective as of the day on which the applicant attained the age of sixty-five years.”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
On Clause 189,
Guy Caron moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 189, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 154 with the following:“on January 1, 2016,”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
Clause 189 carried on division.
On Clause 190,
Guy Caron moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 190, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 155 with the following:“any month in the payment quarter beginning on January 1,”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment is consequential to the previous amendment and therefore is also inadmissible:
That Bill C-15, in Clause 191, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 155 with the following:
“deemed to have come into force, on January 1, 2016.”
Clause 190 carried on division.
Clause 191 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 192 to 206 inclusive carried on division.
On Clause 207,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-15, in Clause 207, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 17 on page 163.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
The Chair ruled that the following two (2) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also inadmissible:
That Bill C-15, in Clause 212, be amended
(a) by deleting line 25 on page 166;
(b) by deleting line 17 on page 167;
(c) by deleting line 6 on page 168;
(d) by deleting line 21 on page 168.
That Bill C-15, in Clause 225, be amended by deleting lines 5 and 6 on page 173.
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-15, in Clause 207, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 163 the following:
“related persons means, with respect to an employee and an employer referred to in section 5, persons who have a dependent relationship within the meaning of the Income Tax Act unless otherwise specified by the Minister of Revenue that he or she is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the employment, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, it is reasonable to conclude that they would not have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm’s length.”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it is consequential to the following amendment, which is inadmissible because it amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition:
That Bill C-15 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 163 the following new clause:
“207.1 Paragraph 5(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) if the employer is, within the meaning of that Act, related to the employee, they are deemed to deal with each other at arm’s length unless the Minister of National Revenue is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the employment, including the remuneration paid, the terms and conditions, the duration and the nature and importance of the work performed, it is reasonable to conclude that they would not have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm’s length.”
Clause 207 carried on division.
Clause 208 carried on division.
On Clause 209,
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-15, in Clause 209, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 163 to line 1 on page 164 with the following:
“209 (1) Subsection 7(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) An insured person qualifies if the person
(a) has had an interruption of earnings from employment; and
(b) has had during their qualifying period at least 360 hours of insurable employment.”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
Clause 209 carried on division.
On Clause 210,
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-15, in Clause 210, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 10 on page 164 with the following:
“210 (1) Subsection 7.1(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
7.1 (1) The number of hours that an insured person requires under section 7 to qualify for benefits is increased to the applicable number provided in paragraphs (a) to (d) if the insured person accumulates one or more violations in the 260 weeks before making their initial claim for benefit:
(a) 525 hours in the case of one or more minor violations;
(b) 630 hours in the case of one or more serious violations;
(c) 735 hours in the case of one or more very serious violations; and
(d) 850 hours in the case of one or more subsequent violations.”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
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-15, in Clause 210, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 20 on page 164 with the following:
“if the insured person qualified for benefits with the increased number of hours in each of those claims.”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
Clause 210 carried on division.
On Clause 211,
Guy Caron moved, — That Bill C-15, in Clause 211, be amended(a) by deleting lines 18 to 25 on page 165.
(b) by replacing line 31 on page 165 with the following:
“under any of subsections (10) to (13.4) must not result in”
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment is consequential to the previous amendment and therefore is also inadmissible:
That Bill C-15, in Clause 212, be amended
(a) by replacing line 11 on page 166 with the following:
“(2) Subject to subsections (2.1) to (2.4), the maximum”
(b) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 167 with the following:
“riod beginning on January 4, 2015 and ending on July 8, 2017;”
(c) by deleting lines 1 to 30 on page 168.
(d) by replacing line 2 on page 169 with the following:
“to (2.4), are the following regions described in Schedule I”
(e) by replacing line 11 on page 170 with the following:
“of any of subsections (2.1) and (2.3) the num-”
Clause 211 carried on division.
At 1:55 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.