FINA Committee Meeting

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Meeting No. 56

Wednesday, May 7, 2003

The Standing Committee on Finance met at 3:35 p.m. this day, in Room 705, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Sue Barnes, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Sue Barnes, Scott Brison, Rick Casson, Nick Discepola, Richard Harris, Rahim Jaffer, Sophia Leung, Hon. Maria Minna, Shawn Murphy, Pierre Paquette, Charlie Penson, Pauline Picard, Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Acting Member present: Rosemary Ur for Roy Cullen; Paddy Torsney for Albina Guarnieri; Larry Bagnell for Gary Pillitteri and Paul Bonwick for Bryon Wilfert.

In attendance: From the Library of Parliament: Marc-André Pigeon and Blayne Haggart, Analysts.

Appearing: From the Department of Finance: Bryon Wilfert, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

Witnesses: From the Department of Finance: Peter Devries, Director, Fiscal Policy Division, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch; Gérard Lalonde, Senior Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch; Brian Willis, Senior Chief, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch; Yvan Roy, Assistant Deputy Minister and Counsel, Law Branch.

Pursuant to its Order of Reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2003, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003 (See Minutes of Proceedings, Wednesday, April 9, 2003, Meeting No. 51).

The Committee resumed the Clause-by-Clause consideration of the Bill.

Clauses 99 to 107 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clause 108 was allowed to stand.

On Clauses 109 to 130.

After debate, the question being put on Clauses 109 to 130 it was carried on the following recorded division:

YEAS: Rosemary Ur, Nick Discepola, Paddy Torsney, Sophia Leung, Maria Minna; Shawn Murphy, Larry Bagnell, Paul Bonwick, Bryon Wilfert, Rick Casson, Judy Wasylycia-Leis - (11)

NAYS: Pierre Paquette, Pauline Picard – (2)

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 8 previously stood.

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 6 the following:

“(2.1) To maximize public input into the consultation process described in subsection (2), the Minister of Human Resources Development shall, in advance of these consultations, conduct comprehensive public consultation on the principles and objectives for the Canada Social Transfer to include, among others, groups representing those directly affected by existing social programs.”

The question being put on the amendment, it was negatived on the following recorded division:

NAYS: Roy Cullen, Nick Discepola, Paddy Torsney, Sophia Leung, Maria Minna; Shawn Murphy, Larry Bagnell, Paul Bonwick, Bryon Wilfert, Rick Casson, Judy Wasylycia-Leis - (11)

YEAS: Pierre Paquette, Pauline Picard - (2)

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 6 with the following:

“programs and for the distinct allocations for post-secondary education, early learning and child care services and social assistance.”

The question being put on the amendment, it was negatived by a show of hands.

YEAS: - (10)

NAYS: - (1)

Clause 8 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 17 previously stood.

On Clause 17,

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 32 with the following:

“is fifteen weeks during the period of 26 weeks”

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 17, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 32 the following:

“(4.11) The maximum number of weeks of benefits specified in subsection (4.1) shall be extended by two-week increments upon certification by a medical doctor that the health and safety of the family member would be compromised by the termination of care provided by the claimant.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

We have two proposed amendments from the NDP (NDP 2 and NDP 3) relating to Part 4 of the Bill.

Part 4 of the Budget Implementation Act 2003 introduces a new type of Employment Insurance special benefit, Compassionate Care benefits, and set the premium rate for 2004.

Amendment NDP-2 extends the Employment Benefits from six weeks to fifteen weeks. As this would greatly increase the monies paid out by the Government, it goes beyond the Royal Recommendation.

Marleau and Montpetit state on page 655 of the House of Commons Practice and Procedure that “an amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury or extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.”  The proposed amendment is therefore inadmissible.

Amendment NDP-3 extends the number of weeks that can be claimed for benefits under certain conditions. This too goes beyond the Royal Recommendation and is inadmissible.

Clause 17 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 19 previously stood.

On Clause 19,

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 32 on page 34 with the following:

“(b) a child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, sibling, aunt, uncle or a person in an equivalent relationship with the person as a result of

(i) marriage, or

(ii) a relationship with a common-law partner; and

(c) any other person who is a member of a”

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 37 with the following:

“purposes of paragraph 23.1(1)(c)”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

We have two other proposed amendments from the NDP (NDP-4 and NDP-5) relating to Part 4 of the Bill.

Part 4 of the Budget Implementation Act 2003 introduces a new type of Employment Insurance special benefit, Compassionate Care benefits, and set the premium rate for 2004.

Amendment NDP-4 adds grandchildren, grandparents, aunts and uncles to the definition of family members that would be eligible for benefits in some circumstances.  This “extends the objects” of the Royal Recommendation and is therefore also inadmissible.

Amendment NDP-5 is consequential to NDP-4 so out of order.

Clause 19 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 44 previously stood.

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 11 on page 49 with the following:

“(a) $0.00 for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, to a maximum of $0.00, if”

Pierre Paquette moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 44 be amended by replacing lines 9 to 11 on page 49 with the following :

“(a) $0.00 for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, if”

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 49 with the following:

“(b) $0.00 for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, to a maximum of $0.00, if”

Pierre Paquette moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 49 with the following:

“ b) $0.00 for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, if”

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29 on page 49 with the following:

“(c) $0.00 for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, to a maximum of $0.00, if”

Pierre Paquette moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29 on page 49 with the following:

“(c) $0.00 for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, if”

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 39 on page 49 with the following:

“(d) $0.00 for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, to a maximum of $0.00, if”

Pierre Paquette moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 39 on page 49 with the following:

“(d) $0.00 for each chargeable emplanement included in the service, if”

Pierre Paquette moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 50 with the following:

“(e) $0.00 if the service includes trans-”

Pierre Paquette moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 44, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 16 on page 50.

RULING  BY THE CHAIR

NDP-6, BQ-1, NDP-7, BQ-2, NDP-8, BQ-3, NDP-9, BQ-4, BQ-5 and BQ-6 will be grouped for debate.

The vote on NDP-6 will apply to BQ-1.

The vote on NDP-7 will apply to BQ-2.

The vote on NDP-8 will apply to BQ-3.

The vote on NDP-9 will apply to BQ-4.

BQ-5 and BQ-6 will be voted separately.

After debate, the question being put on the amendment, NDP-6, it was negatived by a show of hands:

YEAS: - (4)

NAYS: -(6)

The question being put on the amendment, NDP-7, it was negatived by a show of hands:

YEAS: - (4)

NAYS: -(6)

The question being put on the amendment, NDP-8, it was negatived by a show of hands:

YEAS: - (4)

NAYS: -(6)

The question being put on the amendment, NDP-9, it was negatived by a show of hands:

YEAS: - (4)

NAYS: -(6)

The question being put on the amendment, BQ-5, it was negatived by a show of hands:

YEAS: - (4)

NAYS: -(6)

The question being put on the amendment, BQ-6, it was negatived by a show of hands:

YEAS: - (4)

NAYS: -(6)

Clause 44 carried on the following recorded division:

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 64 previously stood.

On Clause 64,

Pierre Paquette moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 29 on page 56 with the following:

“into force on December 17, 1990, except for court cases in which the solicitor for Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada has promised to file consent to judgment before the appropriate tribunal.”

After debate, the question being put on the amendment, it was adopted on the following recorded division:

Clause 64 carried on the following recorded division:

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 66 previously stood.

On Clause 66,

Pierre Paquette moved, -- That Bill C-28 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 57 the following new clause:

“66.1 Section 170 of the Excise Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) In the case of a brewery whose annual production of beer does not exceed 300,000 hectolitres, the duties of excise set out in the schedule shall be reduced by sixty per cent for the first 75,000 hectolitres produced each year.”

(insert Ruling)

Clause 66 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 75 previously stood.

On Clause 75,

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 75, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 83 with the following:

“(e) feeding oneself includes”

(insert Ruling)

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 75, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 83 with the following:

“(f) dressing oneself includes any of”

(insert Ruling)

Clause 75 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 82 previously stood.

On Clause 82,

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 82, be amended by deleting lines 36 to 44 on page 93.

The question being put on the amendment, it was negatived by a show of hands.

Clause 82 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 84 previously stood.

On Clause 84,

Judy Wasylycia-Leis moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 84, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 42 on page 96 and lines 1 to 20 on page 97 with the following:

“(g) for years after 1995, $13,500.”

The question being put on the amendment, it was negatived by a show of hands.

Clause 84 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 108 previously stood.

On Clause 108,

moved, -- That Bill C-28, in Clause 108, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 118 with the following:

Receipt by Receiver General

(6) The receipt by the Receiver General of moneys

After debate, the question being put on the amendment, it was adopted on division.

Clause 108, as amended,

Clause 109 to 130 carried on the following recorded division:

Schedule I carried on division.

The Title carried on division.

The Bill, as amended, carried on the following recorded division:

Clause 1 carried on division.

ORDERED, -- That Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 2003, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at Report Stage.

ORDERED, -- That the Chair report Bill C-28 with amendment to the House as the Fourth Report of the Committee.

At 5:15 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Richard Dupuis

Clerk of the Committee