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
At 9:39 a.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 9:42 a.m., the meeting resumed.
The witnesses answered questions.
Pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, the committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, the committee first considered all clauses to which no amendment was submitted.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 1 to 16 inclusive carried on division severally.
After debate, Clause 17 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Adam Chambers, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Brendan Hanley, Majid Jowhari, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 10;
NAYS: Gabriel Ste-Marie — 1.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 18 to 36 inclusive carried on division severally.
After debate, Clause 37 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Adam Chambers, Julie Dzerowicz, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Brendan Hanley, Majid Jowhari, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 9;
NAYS: Gabriel Ste-Marie — 1.
After debate, Clause 39 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Adam Chambers, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Brendan Hanley, Majid Jowhari, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 7;
NAYS: Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 4.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 40 to 79 inclusive, 81 to 112 inclusive, 117 to 122 inclusive, 125 to 146 inclusive, 148 to 155 inclusive, 159 and 161 to 196 inclusive carried on division severally.
After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 199 to 202 inclusive, 205, 206, 208, 210 to 212 inclusive, 214, 215, 218 to 220 inclusive and 222 to 226 inclusive carried severally on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Ed Fast, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 10;
NAYS: Gabriel Ste-Marie — 1.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 228 to 247 inclusive, 249 to 268 inclusive, 270, 272, 274 to 290 inclusive and 293 to 320 inclusive carried on division severally.
At 10:42 a.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 10:51 a.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, by unanimous consent, Clauses 322 to 325 inclusive and 329 to 333 inclusive carried severally on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 6;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Don Davies, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz — 5.
Pursuant to Standing Order 115(5), it was agreed that the committee continue to sit.
At 10:55 a.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:11 a.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 334 to 385 inclusive, 387 to 390 inclusive, 392, 393, 395, 396, 398, 399, 407, 409, 413 to 421 inclusive, 423 to 426 inclusive, 428 to 432 inclusive, 442 to 444 inclusive, 446 to 460 inclusive and 462 to 468 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 391, 397, 400, 401, 403 to 405, 408, 411, 422, 427, 433 to 437, 439 and 440 were grouped for debate.
Clause 391 was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 5;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Don Davies, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 6.
Clause 397 was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 5;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Don Davies, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 6.
Clause 400 was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 5;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Don Davies, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 6.
Clause 401 was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 5;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Don Davies, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 6.
Clause 403 was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 5;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Don Davies, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 6.
At 11:30 a.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 11:55 a.m., the meeting resumed.
At 12:00 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 12:38 p.m., the meeting resumed.
At 12:43 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 12:48 p.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 385, 387 to 393, 395 to 401, 403, 407, 409, 413 to 421, 423 to 426 and 428 to 432 previously carried were reconsidered.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 385 to 432 inclusive were negatived on division severally.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 433 to 437 inclusive, 439 and 440 carried severally on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Adam Chambers, Terry Dowdall, Julie Dzerowicz, Philip Lawrence, Doug Shipley, Francesco Sorbara, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 10;
NAYS: Don Davies — 1.
Pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, the committee considered all clauses to which amendments were submitted.
On Clause 38,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 67 with the following:“tailing pond”.
It also includes property that consists of equipment used for helium production. (bien de FTP)”
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.
“tailing pond”.
It also includes property that consists of equipment used for natural gas production. (bien de FTP)”
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.
“(d.1) a conversion or fuel fabrication activity; or”
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 38 carried on division.
On Clause 80,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 80, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 164 the following:“(d.1) uranium;”
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.
(a) by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 176 with the following:
“ably relates to the claim or receipt of a tax credit by a cor‐”
(b) by replacing lines 19 to 22 on page 176 with the following:
“(ii) a partnership of which a person is or was a member, or is or was deemed to be a member, in respect of the tax credit;”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Gabriel Ste-Marie appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 5;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Don Davies, Terry Dowdall, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 6.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Adam Chambers and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Adam Chambers, Terry Dowdall, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 5;
NAYS: Yvan Baker, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 6.
Clause 80 carried on division.
On Clause 113,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 113, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 473 to line 2 on page 474 with the following:“113 (1) Section 170.2 of the Excise Act is repealed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Adam Chambers, Terry Dowdall, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz — 4;
NAYS: Yvan Baker, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 7.
Clause 113 carried on division.
On new Clause 113.1,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69 be amended by adding after line 4 on page 474 the following new clause:“113.1 (1) Subsection 1(1) of Part I of the schedule to the Act is replaced by the following:
1 (1) On every litre of absolute ethyl alcohol distilled in Canada, except as hereinafter otherwise provided, $5.533, and so in proportion for any less quantity than one litre (1 L).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
“113.1 (1) Section 1 of Part I of the schedule to the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) Spirits:
(a) per litre of the first 50 000 litres of absolute ethyl alcohol contained in the spirits, 10% of the rate of $11.066;
(b) per litre of the next 50 000 litres of absolute ethyl alcohol contained in the spirits, 15% of the rate of $11.066; and
(c) per litre of the next 100 000 litres of absolute ethyl alcohol contained in the spirits, 25% of the rate of $11.066.
(2) Subsection (1) is deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it would render the clause unintelligible, as provided on pages 772-773 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Gabriel Ste-Marie appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 6;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Terry Dowdall, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 5.
On Clause 114,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 114, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 14 on page 474 with the following:“114 (1) Parts II and II.1 of the schedule to the Act are replaced by the following:
II. Beer
1 On all beer or malt liquor containing more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $31.22 per hectolitre.
2 On all beer or malt liquor containing more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume but not more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $15.61 per hectolitre.
3 On all beer or malt liquor containing not more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $2.591 per hectolitre.
II.1 Canadian Beer
1 On the first 2,000 hectolitres of beer and malt liquor brewed in Canada,
(a) if it contains more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $3.122 per hectolitre;
(b) if it contains more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume but not more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $1.561 per hectolitre; and
(c) if it contains not more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $ 0.2591 per hectolitre.
2 On the next 3,000 hectolitres of beer and malt liquor brewed in Canada,
(a) if it contains more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $6.244 per hectolitre;
(b) if it contains more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume but not more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $3.122 per hectolitre; and
(c) if it contains not more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $ 0.5182 per hectolitre.
3 On the next 10,000 hectolitres of beer and malt liquor brewed in Canada,
(a) if it contains more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $12.488 per hectolitre;
(b) if it contains more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume but not more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $6.244 per hectolitre; and
(c) if it contains not more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $1.0364 per hectolitre.
4 On the next 35,000 hectolitres of beer and malt liquor brewed in Canada,
(a) if it contains more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $21.854 per hectolitre;
(b) if it contains more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume but not more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $10.927 per hectolitre; and
(c) if it contains not more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $1.8137 per hectolitre.
5 On the next 25,000 hectolitres of beer and malt liquor brewed in Canada,
(a) if it contains more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $26.537 per hectolitre;
(b) if it contains more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume but not more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $13.269 per hectolitre; and
(c) if it contains not more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $2.2024 per hectolitre.
(2) Subsection (1) is deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
(a) by deleting lines 8 to 10 on page 474.
(b) by deleting lines 13 and 14 on page 474.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
Clause 114 carried on division.
On Clause 115,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 115, be amended(a) by deleting lines 18 to 20 on page 474.
(b) by deleting lines 23 and 24 on page 474.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
Clause 115 carried on division.
On Clause 116,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 116, be amended(a) by deleting lines 28 to 30 on page 474.
(b) by deleting lines 33 and 34 on page 474.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
Clause 116 carried on division.
On Clause 123,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 123, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 24 on page 476 with the following:“123 (1) Section 123.1 of the Act is repealed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
(a) by replacing line 19 on page 476 with the following:
“to be equal to 0.”
(b) by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 476 with the following:
“without reference to this subsection is greater than 0, the description of B in that paragraph is deemed to be equal to 0.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
Clause 123 carried on division.
On new Clause 123.1,
Gabriel Ste-Marie moved, — That Bill C-69 be amended by adding after line 26 on page 476 the following new clause:“123.1 Paragraph 134(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) that is produced in Canada from honey, fruits – other than grapes –, vegetables or maple product and composed wholly of agricultural or plant product grown in Canada.”
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 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Gabriel Ste-Marie appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 6;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Terry Dowdall, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 5.
On Clause 124,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 124, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 36 on page 476 with the following:“124 (1) Section 135.1 of the Act is repealed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
(a) by replacing line 31 on page 476 with the following:
“to be equal to 0.”
(b) by replacing lines 34 to 36 on page 476 with the following:
“without reference to this subsection is greater than 0, the description of B in that paragraph is deemed to be equal to 0.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
Clause 124 carried on division.
On new Clause 125.1,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69 be amended by adding after line 7 on page 477 the following new clauses:“125.1 (1) Subparagraphs 217(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(i) $11.696 multiplied by the number of litres of absolute ethyl alcohol in the spirits to which the offence relates,
(ii) $ 0.62 multiplied by the number of litres of wine to which the offence relates, and
(2) Subparagraphs 217(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(i) $23.392 multiplied by the number of litres of absolute ethyl alcohol in the spirits to which the offence relates,
(ii) $1.24 multiplied by the number of litres of wine to which the offence relates, and
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.
125.2 (1) Subparagraphs 218(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(i) $23.392 multiplied by the number of litres of absolute ethyl alcohol in the spirits to which the offence relates, and
(ii) $1.24 multiplied by the number of litres of wine to which the offence relates, and
(2) Subparagraphs 218(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(i) $35.088 multiplied by the number of litres of absolute ethyl alcohol in the spirits to which the offence relates, and
(ii) $1.86 multiplied by the number of litres of wine to which the offence relates, and
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.
125.3 (1) Section 242 of the Act is replaced by the following:
242 Every person who contravenes section 72 is liable to a penalty equal to $1.24 per litre of wine to which the contravention relates.
(2) Subsection (1) is deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.
125.4 (1) Paragraph 243(1)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) if the contravention relates to wine, $1.24 per litre of that wine.
(2) Paragraph 243(2)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) if the contravention relates to wine, $ 0.62 per litre of that wine.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.
125.5 (1) Paragraph 243.1(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) if the contravention relates to wine, $ 0.62 per litre of that wine.
(2) Subsection (1) is deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.
125.6 (1) Schedule 4 to the Act is replaced by the following:
SCHEDULE 4
(Sections 122, 123 and 159.1)
Rates of Duty on Spirits
1 Spirits: $11.696 per litre of absolute ethyl alcohol contained in the spirits.
2 Spirits containing not more than 7% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume: $ 0.295 per litre of spirits.
(2) Subsection (1) is deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.
125.7 (1) Schedule 6 to the Act is replaced by the following:
SCHEDULE 6
(Sections 134, 135 and 159.1)
Rates of Duty on Wine
Wine:
(a) in the case of wine that contains not more than 1.2% of absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $ 0.0205 per litre;
(b) in the case of wine that contains more than 1.2% of absolute ethyl alcohol by volume but not more than 7% of absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $ 0.295 per litre; and
(c) in the case of wine that contains more than 7% of absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $ 0.62 per litre.
(2) Subsection (1) is deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
On new Clause 130.1,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 477 the following new clause:“130.1 (1) Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 4 to the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) $5.965; or
(2) Paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 4 to the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) $ 0.151; or
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
“130.1 (1) Subparagraph (a)(i) of Schedule 6 to the Act is replaced by the following:
(i) $ 0.0105, or
(2) Subparagraph (b)(i) of Schedule 6 to the Act is replaced by the following:
(i) $ 0.1505, or
(3) Subparagraph (c)(i) of Schedule 6 to the Act is replaced by the following:
(i) $ 0.315, or
(4) Subsections (1) to (3) are deemed to have come into force on April 1, 2024.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Marty Morantz and it was negatived.
On Clause 147,
Marty Morantz moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 147, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 491 to line 6 on page 495 with the following:“147 The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, section 186 of chapter 12 of the Statutes of Canada, 2018, is repealed.”
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 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Philip Lawrence appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 6;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Terry Dowdall, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 5.
Clause 147 carried on division.
On Clause 156,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 156, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 498 the following:“(a.1) family physician assistant;”
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.
“(n) occupational therapist.”
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 156 carried on division.
Clause 157 carried on division.
Clause 158 carried on division.
Clause 160 carried on division.
On Clause 197,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 197, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 519 the following:“(c) the bargaining agents that represent the employees covered by pension plans under the Acts referred to in those paragraphs.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived.
Clause 197 carried on division.
On Clause 198,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 198, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 520 with the following:“is provided by a consumer or small business, data that is shared between entities with a consumer’s or small business’ consent and data that is provided for”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
At 1:58 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 3:38 p.m., the meeting resumed.
Clause 198 carried on division.
On Clause 203,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 203, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 527 with the following:“personal information, in accordance with federal or provincial privacy legislation, that the Senior Deputy Commis‐”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
“7.4 The Senior Deputy Commissioner may publish, in”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
Clause 203 carried on division.
On Clause 204,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 204, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 527 with the following:“this Act, except with regard to the determination or imposition of penalties, if the person is appointed to serve in the Agency”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
Clause 204 carried on division.
On Clause 207,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 207, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 528 the following:“(1.1) The Commissioner must ensure that the membership of the advisory and other committees established under subsection (1) reflects the perspectives of all market stakeholders and that their activities in advising or assisting the Senior Deputy Commissioner are conducted in an open and transparent manner so that all participants and stakeholders may benefit from those activities.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
“Treasury Board directives and governance best practices.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Philip Lawrence and it was negatived.
Clause 207 carried on division.
On Clause 209,
Jasraj Singh Hallan moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 209, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 529 with the following:“est or right in any shares of any participating entity, including any financial institution, any”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jasraj Singh Hallan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies, Terry Dowdall, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz — 5;
NAYS: Yvan Baker, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 6.
Clause 209 carried on division.
Clause 213 carried on division.
Clause 216 carried on division.
Clause 217 carried on division.
Clause 221 carried on division.
On Clause 227,
Gabriel Ste-Marie moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 227, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 22 on page 537 with the following:“227 Sections 198 to 226 come into force on the day on which all the provinces have given their written consent to all the provisions set out in those sections.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to attach a condition to the coming into force clause, as provided on page 773 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Gabriel Ste-Marie appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 6;
NAYS: Terry Dowdall, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 5.
Clause 227 carried on division.
On Clause 248,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 248, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 545 the following:“177.61 It is prohibited for an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer to intimidate, dismiss, penalize, discipline or otherwise take reprisals against an employee, or threaten to take any such action against an employee, because the employee
(a) asks the employer to comply with the policy;
(b) makes inquiries about their rights under the policy;
(c) files a complaint under the policy; or
(d) exercises or attempts to exercise a right under the policy.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 248, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 269,
Jasraj Singh Hallan moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 269, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 11 on page 552 with the following:“269 The Impact Assessment Act, section 1 of chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada, 2019, is repealed.”
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 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Clause 269 carried on division.
Clause 271 carried on division.
Clause 273 carried on division.
Clause 291 carried on division.
Clause 292 carried on division.
On Clause 321,
Philip Lawrence moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 321, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 578 with the following:“(2), or by a tax accountant, unless the Court under special circumstances grants”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Philip Lawrence appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 6;
NAYS: Terry Dowdall, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 5.
Clause 321 carried on division.
On Clause 326,
By unanimous consent, Don Davies moved, —
That Bill C-69, in Clause 326, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 579 with the following:
“graph 30(1)(j.1) and if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the use”
That Bill C-69, in Clause 326, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 580 with the following:
“graph 30(1)(j.1) and if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the use”
That Bill C-69, in Clause 326, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 581 with the following:
“believes on reasonable grounds that”
By unanimous consent, the amendments of Don Davies were grouped for debate.
By unanimous consent, after debate, the amendments of Don Davies carried severally.
Clause 326, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 327,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 327, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 582 with the following:“(1) or (1.1) only if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was agreed to.
Clause 327, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 328,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 328, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 582 with the following:“believes on reasonable grounds that”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was agreed to.
Clause 328, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 438,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 438, be amended(a) by adding after line 37 on page 645 the following:
“(4) A person detained under this Act must not be detained in a designated immigrant station, as defined in section 94.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, unless, subject to subsections (5) to (7), the Minister determines that the person is to be detained in a designated immigrant station because the person requires a high degree of supervision and control, based on
(a) the nature and level of the danger to the public that the person poses, having regard to any of the following factors:
(i) any conviction in Canada under an Act of Parliament for a sexual offence or an offence involving violence or weapons,
(ii) any conviction outside Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a sexual offence or an offence involving violence or weapons under an Act of Parliament,
(iii) any pending charges in Canada under an Act of Parliament for a sexual offence or an offence involving violence or weapons,
(iv) any pending charges outside Canada, for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a sexual offence or an offence involving violence or weapons under an Act of Parliament,
(v) association with a criminal organization, within the meaning of subsection 121.1(1), or
(vi) association with an organization that engages, or has engaged, in terrorism; or
(b) any serious non-compliance by the person with the rules, applicable in an immigrant station, any other detention facility or any correctional facility where the person is or has been detained, with respect to
(i) the possession of weapons or the possession of or dealing in controlled substances, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or
(ii) violent or aggressive behaviour towards any other person.
(5) The Minister must not determine that a minor child detained under this Act is to be detained in a designated immigrant station.
(6) Before determining that a person detained under this Act is to be detained in a designated immigrant station, the Minister must
(a) provide the person with a written notice informing them that the Minister is considering making a determination that the person is to be detained in a designated immigrant station and informing them of the right to make submissions and to retain and instruct counsel;
(b) allow the person a reasonable opportunity to exercise the rights referred in paragraph (a); and
(c) consider the person’s state of health and health care needs, including with respect to their mental health.
(7) If the Minister determines that a person detained under this Act is to be detained in a designated immigrant station, the Minister must provide the person with written reasons for the determination before the person is detained in a designated immigrant station.
(8) Subsections (6) and (7) do not apply in an emergency in which a person detained under the Act must be immediately detained in a designated immigrant station because of a risk to the safety of the person or to other persons in, or a risk to the security of, the immigrant station where the person is or would otherwise be detained.
(9) If a person is detained in a designated immigrant station in the circumstances described in subsection (8), the Minister must
(a) as soon as feasible after the person is detained in the designated immigrant station, provide the person with a written notice informing them that the Minister is considering making a determination that the person is to remain detained in a designated immigrant station and informing them of the right to make submissions and to retain and instruct counsel; and
(b) allow the person a reasonable opportunity to exercise the rights referred in paragraph (a).
(10) If the Minister determines that a person detained in a designated immigrant station in the circumstances described in subsection (8) is to remain detained in the designated immigrant station, the Minister must provide the person with written reasons for the determination.”
(b) by replacing line 1 on page 646 with the following:
“(2) Subsections 142(2) to (10) of the Act are re-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was agreed to.
Clause 438, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 441,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 441, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 28 on page 646 with the following:“subsection 438(2) come into force on the second anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was agreed to.
Clause 441, as amended, carried on division.
At 4:14 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:32 p.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clause 441 previously carried was reconsidered.
“subsection 438(2) come into force on the second anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Don Davies, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 2;
NAYS: Yvan Baker, Adam Chambers, Julie Dzerowicz, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 9.
“royal assent.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 441, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 445,
Gabriel Ste-Marie moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 445, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 649 the following:“Disclosure of information respecting investments in fossil fuels
162.2 (1) The directors of a company of a prescribed class must make available, in accordance with regulations made under subsection (2), prescribed information respecting the company’s investments in entities that produce fossil fuels at the same time that a notice of annual meeting is sent under subsection 141(1) to shareholders entitled to receive that notice and to the Superintendent.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the disclosure of information related to the investments in entities that produce fossil fuels of a company of a prescribed class.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Gabriel Ste-Marie appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 6;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 5.
“Disclosure of information respecting investments in tax havens
162.2 (1) The directors of a company of a prescribed class must make available, in accordance with regulations made under subsection (2), prescribed information respecting the company's investments in countries recognized as tax havens at the same time that a notice of annual meeting is sent under subsection 141(1) to shareholders entitled to receive that notice and to the Superintendent.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the disclosure of information related to the investments in countries recognized as tax havens of a company of a prescribed class.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Gabriel Ste-Marie appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Don Davies, Julie Dzerowicz, Francesco Sorbara, Joanne Thompson, Ryan Turnbull — 6;
NAYS: Adam Chambers, Jasraj Singh Hallan, Philip Lawrence, Marty Morantz, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 5.
Pursuant to Standing Order 115(5), it was agreed that the committee continue to sit.
Clause 445 carried on division.
On Clause 461,
Don Davies moved, — That Bill C-69, in Clause 461, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 655 the following:“(3.1) Section 55 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) In making regulations under subsection (1) that relate to any authorization or class of authorizations for supervised consumption or drug checking services, the Governor in Council must take into account the need to improve the availability and accessibility of those services, without increasing the administrative burden on service providers and operators, in order to increase the number of lives those services save.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Don Davies and it was negatived.
Clause 461 carried on division.
The Title carried on division.
The Bill, as amended, was adopted on division.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-69, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at report stage, on division.
It was agreed, — That the committee not hold a meeting on Thursday, June 6, 2024.
At 4:53 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.