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 6:31 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 115(5), it was agreed that the committee continue to sit.
The witnesses made statements and answered questions.
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The Chair called the new Clause 0.1.
“0.1 The portion of subparagraph 56(1)(r)(iv.1) of the Income Tax Act before clause (A) is replaced by the following:
(iv.1) financial assistance, except for the purpose of computing the taxpayer's income within the meaning of section 2 of the Old Age Security Act, provided under”
Debate arose thereon.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because Bill C-2 provides for further support in response to COVID 19. The amendment seeks to amend subparagraph 56(1)(r)(iv.1) of the Income Tax Act to remove any covid related financial assistance amount from the calculation of a taxpayer’s income in order to receive Old Age Security Benefit.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:
“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 amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the Bill and which would also require a Royal Recommendation. Therefore, he ruled the amendment inadmissible.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also inadmissible:
That Bill C-2 be amended by adding before line 4 on page 1 the following new clause:“0.1 Subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition adjusted income in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act is replaced by the following:
(i) under paragraph 56(1)(q.1), subparagraph 56(1)(r)(iv.1) or subsection 56(6),”
Whereupon, Daniel Blaikie 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, Terry Beech, George Chahal, Julie Dzerowicz, Heath MacDonald, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 6;
NAYS: Daniel Blaikie, Adam Chambers, Greg McLean, Pierre Poilievre, Jake Stewart — 5.
On Clause 1,
Daniel Blaikie moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 1, be amended(a) by adding after line 21 on page 11 the following:
“(18.1) Section 125.7 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.01) Despite subsection (2), no overpayment on account of a qualifying entity’s liability under this Part for the taxation year in which the qualifying period ends is deemed to have arisen with respect to a qualifying entity that is a publicly traded company or a subsidiary of such a company if, in the qualifying period, it paid dividends.”
(b) by adding after line 30 on page 12 the following:
“(24) Subsection (18.1) is deemed to have come into force on March 15, 2020.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 6:53 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 7:23 p.m., the sitting resumed.
The debate continued.
Greg McLean moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraph (b).
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Greg McLean and it was agreed to.
Greg McLean moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “it paid dividends” with the following: “it paid taxable dividends on common equity”.
At 8:09 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 8:18 p.m., the sitting resumed.
After debate, by unanimous consent, Clause 1 was allowed to stand.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carried on division severally.
On new Clause 4.1,
Daniel Blaikie moved, — That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 7 on page 16 the following new clause:“PART 1.1
Benefits Based on Income
4.1 (1) Despite any other Act of Parliament, any amount or benefit referred to in subsection (2) is not to be taken into account in computing a person's income for the purposes of determining their eligibility for a payment or benefit that is based on their income, such as the monthly guaranteed income supplement or the Canada child benefit.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), amounts and benefits are
(a) the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit payable under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act;
(b) the Canada emergency student benefit payable under the Canada Emergency Student Benefit Act;
(c) the payment under the program referred to in section 275 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1;
(d) the income support payment payable under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act; and
(e) the Canada worker lockdown benefit payable under the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act.
(3) This section is deemed to have come into force on March 15, 2020.”
Debate arose thereon.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because Bill C-2 provides for further support in response to COVID 19. The amendment seeks to amend the definition of adjusted income in Section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act to remove any covid related financial assistance amount from the calculation of a taxpayer’s income in order to receive the Canada Child Care Benefit.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:
“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 amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the Bill and which would also require a Royal Recommendation. Therefore, he ruled the amendment inadmissible.
On Clause 5,
Daniel Blaikie moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 23 with the following:“9 The amount of a lockdown benefit for a week is $500.”
Debate arose thereon.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because Bill C-2 provides for further support in response to COVID 19 in the amount of $300 weekly as part as the lockdown benefit. The amendment attempts to increase this amount to $500 weekly.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 772:
“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 superior amount for the lockdown benefit, which imposes a charge on the public treasury higher than the one contemplated in the Bill. Therefore, he ruled the amendment inadmissible.
“9.1 Regardless of whether a lockdown order has been made, a person who performed self-employment work for a qualifying tourism or hospitality entity, within the meaning of subsection 125.7(1) of the Income Tax Act, is deemed eligible for a lockdown benefit and may make an application under section 5.”
Debate arose thereon.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because Bill C-2 provides for further support in response to COVID 19 with the lockdown benefit available to people meeting the criteria established in the Bill. The amendment attempts to allow the lockdown benefit to be accessed under specific circumstances even if a lockdown has not been called.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 772:
“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 for the lockdown benefit, which would make available to people not presently eligible under the Bill which would impose a higher charge on the public treasury than the one contemplated in the Bill. Therefore, he ruled the amendment inadmissible.
Clause 5 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 6 to 17 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 18,
Greg McLean moved, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 37 with the following:“may, until September 30, 2024, be paid out of the Consolidat-”
After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
Clause 18 carried on division.
Clause 19 carried on division.
On new Clause 19.1,
Daniel Blaikie moved, — That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 4 on page 37 the following new clause:“PART 3.1
Limited Recovery
19.1 Despite section 12 of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act and section 28 of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, any amount received by a person as income support under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act or as a Canada recovery benefit under the Canada Recovery Benefits Act to which the person was not entitled or any amount received in excess of the amount to which they were entitled may only be recovered at a ratio of fifty cents on every dollar of the person's income, computed in accordance with the Income Tax Act, for the fiscal year in which the amount was received in excess of the applicable Low Income Measure threshold set by Statistics Canada.”
Debate arose thereon.
RULING BY THE CHAIR
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because Bill C-2 provides for further support in response to COVID 19. The amendment attempts to create a mechanism allowing people who have received certain benefits they were not entitled to, to reimburse 50% of the amount instead of the full amount as provided in the respective acts. If adopted, the amendment would force the Government to reimburse people who would have already paid back any amount above the 50% threshold from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 772:
“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 for the reimbursement of payments of benefits unduly received which would impose an increased charge on the public treasury not envisioned in the Bill. Therefore, he ruled the amendment inadmissible.
At 9:34 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 9:40 p.m., the sitting resumed.
The debate continued.
By unanimous consent, the committee reverted to Clause 1 previously stood.
The committee resumed consideration of the amendment of Daniel Blaikie, as amended, — That Bill C-2, in Clause 1, be amended
(a) by adding after line 21 on page 11 the following:
“(18.1) Section 125.7 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.01) Despite subsection (2), no overpayment on account of a qualifying entity’s liability under this Part for the taxation year in which the qualifying period ends is deemed to have arisen with respect to a qualifying entity that is a publicly traded company or a subsidiary of such a company if, in the qualifying period, it paid dividends.”.
The committee resumed consideration of the subamendment of Greg McLean, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “it paid dividends” with the following: “it paid taxable dividends on common equity”.
By unanimous consent, the text of the subamendment of Greg McLean was replaced with the following: “That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “it paid dividends” with the following: “it paid taxable dividends to an individual who is a holder of common shares of the company or of the subsidiary of the company”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Greg McLean and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Daniel Blaikie, Adam Chambers, Greg McLean, Pierre Poilievre, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Jake Stewart — 6;
NAYS: Yvan Baker, Terry Beech, George Chahal, Julie Dzerowicz, Heath MacDonald — 5.
The question was put on the amendment of Daniel Blaikie, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Daniel Blaikie, Adam Chambers, Greg McLean, Pierre Poilievre, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Jake Stewart — 6;
NAYS: Yvan Baker, Terry Beech, George Chahal, Julie Dzerowicz, Heath MacDonald — 5.
“A is the greater of
(a) the executive compensation repayment amount of the eligible entity, and
(b) with respect to a qualifying entity that is a publicly traded company or a subsidiary of such a company, the amount of dividends paid by the company or its subsidiary; and”
Debate arose thereon.
Adam Chambers moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “dividends paid by the company or its subsidiary; and” with the following: “taxable dividends paid by the company or its subsidiary to an individual who is a holder of common shares of the company or of the subsidiary of the company; and”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Adam Chambers and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Daniel Blaikie, Adam Chambers, Greg McLean, Pierre Poilievre, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Jake Stewart — 6;
NAYS: Yvan Baker, Terry Beech, George Chahal, Julie Dzerowicz, Heath MacDonald — 5.
The question was put on the amendment of Daniel Blaikie, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Daniel Blaikie, Adam Chambers, Greg McLean, Pierre Poilievre, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Jake Stewart — 6;
NAYS: Yvan Baker, Terry Beech, George Chahal, Julie Dzerowicz, Heath MacDonald — 5.
Clause 1, as amended, carried on division.
On new Clause 19.1,
Pierre Poilievre moved, — That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 4 on page 37 the following new clause:“PART 3.1
Review of Acts
19.1 (1) The Auditor General of Canada must, during the first year after the coming into force of this section, complete a performance audit of
(a) the benefits paid under the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act and the Canada Recovery Benefits Act;
(b) the benefits paid under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy programs;
(c) the efficiency of the benefits referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) and the means to measure the effectiveness of those benefits; and
(d) any payments made under the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act and the Canada Recovery Benefits Act to ineligible recipients and the response of the Canada Revenue Agency with respect to those payments.
(2) A report on the review completed under subsection (1) must be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who must table it before that House as soon as feasible after receiving it, or if the House is not then sitting, on the first day of the next sitting of the House.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Poilievre and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Daniel Blaikie, Adam Chambers, Greg McLean, Pierre Poilievre, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Jake Stewart — 6;
NAYS: Yvan Baker, Terry Beech, George Chahal, Julie Dzerowicz, Heath MacDonald — 5.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 20 to 29 inclusive carried on division severally.
The Title carried on division.
The Bill, as amended, was adopted on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Yvan Baker, Terry Beech, George Chahal, Julie Dzerowicz, Heath MacDonald, Gabriel Ste-Marie — 6;
NAYS: Daniel Blaikie, Adam Chambers, Greg McLean, Pierre Poilievre, Jake Stewart — 5.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House on division.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-2, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at report stage, on division.
At 10:13 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.