FINA Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Finance met in a televised session at 8:49 a.m. this day, in Room 237-C, Centre Block, the Chair, James Rajotte, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Sean Keenan, Carlos Achadinha, Gregory Smart, Patrick Halley, Annie Hardy, Tom McGirr, Nicolas Marion, Paul Halucha, Alexandra Hiles, Karine Paré and Dennis Duggan answered questions.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

Clause 2 carried on division.

Clause 3 carried.

Clause 4 carried.

Clause 5 carried on division.

Clause 6 carried on division.

On Clause 7,

“than 1.49 and less than 2.50 (as”

After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was allowed to stand.

By unanimous consent, Clause 7 was allowed to stand.

Clause 8 carried.

Clause 9 carried.

On Clause 10,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Louis Plamondon for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 5 with the following: “a taxation year that begins after 2012, the first-time donor may deduct an”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 10 carried.

Clause 11 carried on division.

After debate, Clause 12 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 13 carried.

Clause 14 carried.

On Clause 15,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Louis Plamondon for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 7 to line 27 on page 8 with the following:

“amount determined by multiplying the rate that would, if subsection 125(1.1) applied to the corporation for the year, be its small business deduction rate for the year within the meaning assigned by that subsection, by the amount, if any, by which the lesser of

(a) the corporation’s taxable income for the year, and

(b) the amount, if any, by which 4/3 of the corporation’s maximum cumulative reserve at the end of the year exceeds the corporation’s preferred-rate amount at the end of the immediately preceding taxation year exceeds

(c) the least of the amounts determined under paragraphs 125(1)(a) to 125(1)(c) in respect of the corporation for the year.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-60 amends the Income Tax Act to phase out a tax deduction for credit unions.

This amendment proposes to revert back to the original wording of the Act, thus allowing the tax deduction to remain in place.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd Edition) states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the deletion of a key element is contrary to the principle of Bill C-60 and is therefore inadmissible.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 15, be amended

(a) by replacing line 13 on page 8 with the following:

“(b) the proportion of 95% that the” (b) by replacing line 17 on page 8 with the following:

“(c) the proportion of 90% that the”

(c) by replacing line 20 on page 8 with the following:

“(d) the proportion of 85% that the”

(d) by replacing line 23 on page 8 with the following:

“(e) the proportion of 80% that the”

(e) by replacing line 27 on page 8 with the following: “after 2016, 75%.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“(b) the proportion of 90% that the number of days in the year that are after March 20, 2013 and before 2014 is of the number of days in the year,

(c) the proportion of 80% that the number of days in the year that are in 2014 is of the number of days in the year,

(d) the proportion of 70% that the number of days in the year that are in 2015 is of the number of days in the year,

(e) the proportion of 60% that the number of days in the year that are in 2016 is of the number of days in the year,

(f) the proportion of 50% that the number of days in the year that are in 2017 is of the number of days in the year,

(g) the proportion of 40% that the number of days in the year that are in 2018 is of the number of days in the year,

(h) the proportion of 30% that the number of days in the year that are in 2019 is of the number of days in the year,

(i) the proportion of 20% that the number of days in the year that are in 2020 is of the number of days in the year,

(j) the proportion of 10% that the number of days in the year that are in 2021 is of the number of days in the year, and

(k) if one or more days in the year are after 2021, 0%.”

The question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 15 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 16 carried.

Clause 17 carried.

Clause 18 carried.

Clause 19 carried.

Clause 20 carried.

Clause 21 carried.

Clause 22 carried.

Clause 23 carried.

Clause 24 carried.

Clause 25 carried.

Clause 26 carried.

Clause 27 carried.

Clause 28 carried.

Clause 29 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 30 to 35 inclusive carried severally.

After debate, Clause 36 was allowed to stand.

Clause 37 carried.

Clause 38 carried.

Clause 39 carried.

Clause 40 carried.

Clause 41 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 42 to 46 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 47,

“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) come into force on January 1, 2014.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 47 carried on division.

On Clause 48,

“section 5, paragraph 7(j) and sections 9 and 11 to 14, a supply that is not a”

The question was put on the amendment of Raymond Côté and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“1.3 For greater certainty, section 1.2 does not apply in respect of psychological assessments, reports or examinations.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“made after January 1, 2014.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 48 carried on division.

On Clause 49,

“supply made after January 1, 2014.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 49 carried.

On Clause 50,

“supply made after January 1, 2014.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 50 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 51 to 61 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 62,

“(2) At least two years before sections 33 to 35 cease to have effect, the Minister shall cause a report to be laid before Parliament that contains

(a) the names of those countries on the List of Countries that are beneficiaries of the General Preferential Tariff and that will no longer be entitled to the General Preferential Tariff rates; and

(b) an impact statement outlining the effects of paragraph (a) on consumers.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 62 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 63 to 77 inclusive carried severally.

Clause 78 carried.

“78.1 Tariff item No. 8519.81.29 00 in the List of Tariff Provisions set out in the schedule to the Act is amended by replacing in the column “Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff / Final Rate”, the reference to “5% (A)” with a reference to “Free (F)”.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“78.1 Tariff item No. 8521.90.90 in the List of Tariff Provisions set out in the schedule to the Act is amended by replacing in the column “Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff / Final Rate”, the reference to “6%” (A) with a reference to “Free (F)”.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 79 carried.

Clause 80 carried.

Clause 81 carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 82 to 101 inclusive carried severally.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 102 and 103 carried severally.

After debate, Clause 104 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 105 to 109 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 110 to 124 inclusive carried severally.

Clause 125 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

After debate, Clause 126 carried.

Clause 127 carried.

After debate, Clause 128 carried.

Clause 129 carried.

On Clause 130,

“First Nation, Métis and Inuit students.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Clause 130 of Bill C-60 provides for post-secondary scholarships for students who are registered as Indians under the Indian Act and for Inuit students.

The amendment seeks to amend the bill so that unregistered First Nation, Métis and Inuit students would also be eligible for the scholarship.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd Edition) states at pages 767-768:

“Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment expands the groups eligible to receive the scholarship, which seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the Royal Recommendation; therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Clause 130 carried.

Clause 131 carried.

Clause 132 carried.

On Clause 133,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Louis Plamondon for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 133, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 66 with the following: “17. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, dissolve the Transition Office no later than July 12, 2013.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-60 amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act in order provide for the extension of the Transition Office until the Governor in Council decides to dissolve it.

This amendment proposes to force the Governor in Council to dissolve the Transition Office no later than July 12, 2013.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd Edition) states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the removal of the ability of the Governor in Council to extend the operation of the Transition Office would be contrary to the provisions of Clause 133 of the bill and therefore, inadmissible.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 133 to 135 inclusive carried severally.

At 10:39 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 10:53 a.m., the sitting resumed.

On Clause 136,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 136, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 67 with the following:

“of such a government, that is pursuing political or economic objectives that are potentially injurious to Canada’s national security;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 11.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 136, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 67 the following:

“(3) Section 3 of the Act is amended by renumbering it as subsection 3(1) and adding the following:

(2) The Minister shall issue guidelines under section 38 defining the terms “control”, “control in fact”, “influence” and “direction” and include in those guidelines specific examples of situations where a foreign government would be considered to have sufficient influence or direction over an entity to make it a state-owned enterprise.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 136, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 67 the following:

“(3) Section 3 of the Act is amended by renumbering it as subsection 3(1) and adding the following after that subsection:

(2) The following definitions apply in the definition “state-owned enterprise” in subsection (1).

“influence” means influence exerted by a non-Canadian government or agency thereof in order to further its geopolitical goals in Canada, as determined in accordance with prescribed criteria.

“direction” means direction given by a non-Canadian government or agency thereof in order to further its geopolitical goals in Canada, as determined in accordance with prescribed criteria.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

After debate, Clause 136 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 137,

“the following year, $345,000,000;

(b) for an investment implemented at any time in the year that begins after the period referred to in paragraph (a), or in any”

The question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 137, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 68 with the following:

“section 2 or if the enterprise value, calculated in the manner prescribed, of the assets described in paragraph 14(3)(a) or (b), as the case may be, is equal to or greater than,

(a) for an investment implemented at any time in the year that begins on the day on which this paragraph comes into force, or in the following year, $600,000,000;

(b) for an investment implemented at any time in the two years that begin immediately after the two years referred to in paragraph (a), $800,000,000;

(c) for an investment implemented at any time in the year that begins immediately after the years for which the amount set out in paragraph (b) applies, $1,000,000,000;

(d) for an investment implemented at any time in the period that begins immediately after the year for which the amount set out in paragraph (c) applies and that ends on the following December 31, $1,000,000,000; and

(e) for an investment implemented at any time in the year that begins after the period referred to in paragraph (d), or in any subsequent year, the amount determined under subsection (2).”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 10.

After debate, Clause 137 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

“137.1 Paragraph 19(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(d) any representations submitted to the Director by a province, community, trade union, employee or other person or organization that is likely to be affected by the investment.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend section 19 of the Investment Canada Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd Edition) states at pages 766-767:

“… an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 19 of the Investment Canada Act is not being amended by Bill C-60, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 138 to 140 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 141,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 141, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 72 the following:

“(8) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (6), the factors to be taken into account by the Minister in making a determination whether an investment could be injurious to national security include

(a) whether the non-Canadian making the investment is a state-owned enterprise;

(b) the domestic production needed for projected national defence requirements;

(c) the capability and capacity of domestic industries to meet national defence requirements, including the availability of human resources, products, technology, materials and other supplies and services;

(d) the potential effects of foreign control of domestic industries and commercial activity on the capability and capacity of Canada to meet the requirements of national security;

(e) the potential effects of the proposed or pending transaction on sales of military goods, equipment or technology to a country that supports terrorism, a country of concern regarding the proliferation of missiles or of chemical and biological weapons, a country that poses a potential regional military threat to the interests of Canada or a country that is listed on the nuclear non-proliferation special country list;

(f) the potential effects of the transaction on Canadian international technological leadership in areas affecting national security;

(g) the potential effects related to national security on critical national infrastructure, including major energy assets;

(h) the potential effects related to national security on Canadian critical technologies;

(i) whether the investment is the result of a transaction controlled by a foreign government;

(j) in the case where the non-Canadian making the investment is a government or agency thereof, the adherence of the non-Canadian to non-proliferation control regimes, the cooperation of the non-Canadian with Canada, specifically in counterterrorism efforts, and the potential for transshipment or diversion of technologies with military applications;

(k) the long-term projection of Canadian requirements for sources of energy and other critical resources and material; and

(l) such other factors as the Minister may determine to be appropriate, generally or in connection with a specific review or investigation.”

Debate arose thereon.

Scott Brison moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the word "include", the following words: “but not be limited to”.

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.

The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

Clause 141 carried.

Clause 142 carried.

On Clause 143,

“(2.5) The Minister shall cause to be tabled, in each House of Parliament, a report giving the reasons for any determination made under any of subsections (2.1), (2.11) and (2.31) or declaration made under subsection (2.2) or (2.32) without delay after the determination or declaration is made.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

Clause 143 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 144,

“(8) The Minister shall cause to be tabled, in each House of Parliament, a report giving the reasons for any determination made under any of subsections (4), (4.1) and (6.1) or declaration made under subsection (5) or (6.2) without delay after the determination or declaration is made.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 144 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 145,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 76 with the following:

“does not apply, and the Minister shall provide”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“145.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 37:

37.1 (1) Within one year after the implementation of an investment that was reviewed under this Act, the Investment Review Branch of the Department of Industry shall undertake a review of the performance of the non-Canadian who implemented the investment in respect of each of the factors set out in section 20 and to determine if all undertakings made by the non-Canadian have been satisfied.

(2) The Minister shall cause to be tabled, in each House of Parliament, a report on the results of any review conducted under subsection (1) without delay after the review is completed.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 145 carried.

Clause 146 carried.

Clause 147 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

Clause 148 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

Clause 149 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 150 to 153 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

On Clause 154,

“by order of the Governor in Council, which may not be earlier than January 1, 2018.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 7.

Clause 154 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 155 to 160 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 161,

“(1.45) The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development shall refuse to process a request for an opinion with respect to an application for a work permit where a position is advertised at a salary that is less than the prevailing wage for the sector and region of employment.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“(1.45) The public policy considerations that are to be specified in the instructions referred to in subsections (1.41) and (1.43) shall include the following:

(a) the employer shall pay at least the prevailing wage rate with respect to a given occupation in the employer's region;

(b) there is a legitimate skill shortage, based on considerations of employment growth, unemployment rate and wage growth;

(c) working conditions are safe and satisfactory, and the rights of temporary foreign workers shall not be abused; and

(d) Canadian citizens or permanent residents who are qualified and willing to perform the job shall not be displaced by a temporary foreign worker.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“(1.61) Within 30 days of the revocation of a work permit under subsection (1.41) or the revocation of an opinion, suspension of the effects of an opinion or refusal to process a request for such an opinion under subsection (1.43), the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, in the case of a revoked work permit, or the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, in the case of a revoked opinion, suspension of the effects of an opinion or refusal to process a request for an opinion, shall prepare and submit to the relevant Minister a report of each such revocation, suspension or refusal, which contains the following information:

(a) the scope and extent of the powers exercised in relation to the revocation, suspension or refusal;

(b) the reasons for the revocation, suspension or refusal;

(c) the total number of revocations, suspensions and refusals relating to permits and opinions at the time of preparing the report; and

(d) the national occupational classification code for the relevant permit or opinion that is referred to in the report.

(1.62) The relevant Minister shall cause a copy of the report referred to in subsection (1.61) to be laid before Parliament on any of the first 30 days that either House of Parliament is sitting after the Minister receives it.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 161 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 162 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 163 carried.

Clause 164 carried.

Clause 165 carried.

On Clause 166,

“question and the date of their application;

(e.2) the number of investigations and compliance audits conducted by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to work permits and the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development with respect to opinions and their results;

(e.3) the financial and staff resources that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development allocated to monitoring compliance with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program;

(e.4) the total fees collected for the rights and privileges conferred by means of work permits and the allocation of the funds raised by means of these fees; and”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 166 carried.

Clause 167 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 168 and 169 which are therefore also adopted.

Clause 170 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 171 and 172 which are therefore also adopted.

Clause 173 carried.

At At 12:10 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 12:27 p.m., the sitting resumed.

On Clause 174,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 174, be amended

(a) by replacing line 36 on page 88 with the following:

“nomic relations, ensuring that all economic relationships are founded on the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law;”

(b) by replacing line 38 on page 88 with the following:

“tional trade and commerce and ensure that Canadian enterprises operating internationally do so in a manner that is socially and ecologically responsible;”

(c) by replacing line 41 on page 88 with the following:

“countries, provide development assistance for the mitigation of, and adaptation to, the disproportionate effects of climate change on developing countries and provide humanitarian assis-”

(d) by replacing line 9 on page 89 with the following:

“relations, provide material support for international organizations mandated to support this objective, including the United Nations and the International Criminal Court;”

(e) by replacing line 10 on page 89 with the following:

“(k) pursue non-violent resolutions to international and civil conflicts, supporting military intervention during peacekeeping and peacemaking operations authorized by the United Nations only when all such non-violent means of conflict resolution have been exhausted; and

(l) carry out any other duties and functions”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 11.

“countries, including through the provision of assistance under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, and provide humanitarian assistance during crises in accordance with key internationally recognized humanitarian principles, including respect for humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence;”

The question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“developing countries, including through the provision of assistance under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act; and

(c) the provision of humanitarian assistance during crises, in accordance with key internationally recognized humanitarian principles, including respect for humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.”

The question was put on the amendment of Guy Caron and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

(a) by replacing line 24 on page 90 with the following:

“reduction in developing countries, including through the provision of assistance under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, and provide”

(b) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 90 with the following:

“international development activities through adherence to commonly accepted principles of aid and development effectiveness, including country ownership and alignment, focus on results, inclusive development partnerships, transparency and accountability;”

(c) by replacing lines 37 to 39 on page 90 with the following:

“national development are in line with Canadian values and priorities; and

(e) ensuring Canada's international humanitarian assistance contributions are in line with key internationally recognized humanitarian principles, including respect for humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“reduction in developing countries, including through the provision of assistance under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, and provide”

The question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“assistance activities through adherence to commonly accepted principles of aid and development effectiveness;”

The question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“national development are in line with Canadian values and”

The question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 174, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 90 with the following:

“priorities, namely a commitment to equality, democracy, social justice, ecological integrity, multilateralism, human rights and the rule of law.”

Debate arose thereon.

Murray Rankin moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word "namely" with the following:"including".

The question was put on the subamendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

The question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.

After debate, Clause 174 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 1.

Clause 175 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 1.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 176 to 199 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

After debate, Clause 200 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 201 to 207 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

“207.1 The Minister shall cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament, without delay, a report specifying how any measure taken under section 202 or subsection 203(1) or 205(1) is of net benefit to Canada, describing the possible impact of those measures on Canadian communities and businesses and, if applicable, indicating the expected return on investment.”

The question was put on the amendment of Murray Rankin and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 208 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

Clause 209 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 4.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 210 to 212 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

Clause 213 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous clause be applied to Clauses 214 to 224 inclusive which are therefore also adopted.

After debate, Clause 225 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

After debate, Clause 226 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 10; NAYS: 1.

Clause 227 carried.

On Clause 228,

(a) by replacing line 27 on page 108 with the following:

“89.91 and 89.92, 131.1 and 154.01, do not apply to”

(b) by replacing line 2 on page 109 with the following:

“89.91 and 89.92 and 154.01, do not apply to the”

(c) by replacing line 7 on page 109 with the following:

“89.91 and 89.92, subsection 105(2) and sections”.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“International Development Research Centre or the National Arts Centre Corporation.

(1.11) Divisions I to IV, except for subsection 105(2) and sections 113.1, 119, 131 to 148 and 154.01, do not apply to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

(a) by replacing line 10 on page 109 with the following:

“Inter-”

(b) by adding after line 12 on page 109 the following:

“(1.11) Divisions I to IV, except for subsection 105(2) and sections 113.1, 119, 131 to 148 and 154.01, do not apply to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.”

The question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 228 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 229,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 229, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 109 with the following:

“order, direct a Crown corporation, other than the Canada Council for the Arts, the Canada Post Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the International Development Research Centre or VIA Rail Canada Inc., to have its”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-60, in Clause 229, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 109 with the following:

“order, direct a Crown corporation, other than one whose independence from intervention by the Governor in Council is provided for in subsections 2(3), 35(2) and 46(5) and in section 52 of the Broadcasting Act, to have its”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“(2.1) For greater certainty, the Treasury Board may not impose any requirement that does not comply with all applicable laws relating to labour relations, including the Canada Labour Code.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

“(2.1) The Treasury Board may not impose on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation any requirement that is inconsistent with its journalistic integrity.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

“(2.1) For greater certainty, the Treasury Board may not impose any requirement that does not comply with the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

“(5) As soon as the collective agreement is entered into, the Crown corporation shall make public the requirements imposed under subsection (2) with respect to the negotiating mandate.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

“(3) For greater certainty, the Treasury Board may not impose any requirement that does not comply with all applicable laws relating to labour relations, including the Canada Labour Code.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

“89.93 Nothing in sections 89.8 to 89.92 shall be interpreted or applied so as to limit the freedom of expression or the journalistic, creative or programming independence enjoyed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers.”

The question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

After debate, Clause 229 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 230 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 231 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 232,

“(2) Subsections 228(1) and (3) and sections 229 to 231 come into force five years after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”

The question was put on the amendment of Peggy Nash and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 232 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 233,

“subsection (1) is $2,040,000,000. For each subsequent fiscal year, the sum that may be paid under subsection (1) is the amount obtained by multiplying the sum paid for the immediately preceding year by 1.02, rounded to the nearest thousand.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-60 provides for a maximum payment of two billion dollars with respect to the Office of Infrastructure of Canada or of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The amendment seeks to amend the bill so that an additional 40 million dollars can be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd Edition) states at pages 767-768:

“Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme, which seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the Royal Recommendation; therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Clause 233 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

The Committee reverted to Clause 7 previously stood.

“than 1.49 and less than 2.50 (as”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Scott Brison and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 7 carried on division.

The Committee reverted to Clause 36 previously stood.

Clause 36 carried on division.

Schedule 1 carried on division.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

The Bill carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill to the House.

At 1:56 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.