THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 20, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-44, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, met this day at 2:00 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee.
I wish to welcome all of those who are with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be watching on television or online.
Now I would like to ask honourable senators to introduce themselves individually.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: It looks like you have a solid quorum today. My name is Senator Éric Forest from the Gulf region of Quebec.
Senator Bellemare: I am Senator Diane Bellemare from Quebec, more specifically from the island of Laval in the east of Montreal.
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Campbell: Larry Campbell, British Columbia.
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion, Ontario.
Senator Fraser: Joan Fraser, Quebec.
Senator Day: Joseph Day, Saint John, Kennebecasis, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto, substituting for Senator George Baker.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Cools: I am Anne Cools, a senator from Toronto, Ontario, and I am also the deputy chairman of this splendid committee.
The Chair: I would also like to recognize the clerk of this committee. Ms. Gaëtane Lemay and our two analysts, Sylvain Fleury and Olivier Leblanc-Laurendeau.
[Translation]
They team up to support the work of this committee.
[English]
Colleagues and members of the viewing public, we are now about to begin going through Bill C-44 clause by clause. Before we do this, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. Please bear with me.
[Translation]
I know that all members are very eager to ensure that, in this committee, we do the best we possibly can so that, when the Senate takes up this bill again at third reading, it has before it the best possible product.
[English]
This has always been our objective. If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. We should at all times have the same understanding of where we are in the process of Bill C-44.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is to be moved in a clause, the amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause, meaning that amendments should be proposed following the order of the text to be amended. Therefore, before we take up an amendment in a clause, I will be verifying as chair whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in that particular clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the chance and the opportunity to do so.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind honourable senators that, in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause, but rather to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill.
[Translation]
I would also remind honourable senators that some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is very important that the committee remain consistent in its decisions and that they be consistently applied throughout Bill C-44.
[English]
In this spirit, honourable senators, it would be very useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identify other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it could be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision-making process. Staff will endeavour to keep track of these places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them each and every time.
Honourable senators, because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If members ever have questions about process or the propriety of anything going on, they can raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of the matter of order, and finally make a ruling.
[Translation]
The committee is, of course, the ultimate master of its business within the bounds set on it by the Senate, and a ruling by the Chair can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
[English]
As chair, honourable senators, I will do my utmost best to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend on your cooperation, each and every one, and I ask all of you to think of other senators and to keep your remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind all honourable senators that no seconder is required in committee and that, if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the cleanest route in democracy is to request a roll call vote, which provides clear results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negatives the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above, honourable senators?
Honourable senators, about 50 officials from different departments are in another room next to us or here in this room, and they are available to answer any questions from senators.
Before we move directly to Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures, so that everybody is clear on who is a member in good standing of the committee and is therefore allowed to move a motion and to vote on any motion, I will ask the clerk to read aloud for the record the membership list of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Gaëtane Lemay, Clerk of the Committee: I will list the members who are present at this time. The list as of today is: the Honourable Senator Mockler, the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, the Honourable Senator Bellemare, the Honourable Senator Campbell, the Honourable Senator Cools, the Honourable Senator Day, the Honourable Senator Eaton, the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., the Honourable Senator Forest, the Honourable Senator Fraser, the Honourable Senator Marshall, the Honourable Senator Moncion, the Honourable Senator Oh, the Honourable Senator Pratte, the Honourable Senator Smith, who is on his way, the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, and finally the Honourable Senator Woo.
The Chair: Thank you, madam clerk.
You have your own copy of Bill C-44. Therefore, honourable senators, we will commence immediately.
Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Chair, with your permission and with the consent of the committee, I would ask if I might make a very short opening statement concerning some very recent input that we’ve received pertaining to Bill C-44.
The Chair: There is a request. Do we have consensus to listen to Senator Woo? He has a short statement. It is only a one-pager.
Senator Tkachuk: Is this letter written by someone who was a witness either at the Banking Committee or at the Finance Committee?
The Chair: I’ll ask Senator Woo to answer that question.
Senator Woo: No, it was not. It was written by somebody from one of the organizations that was at the Banking Committee. This letter was written in part to provide clarification because that organization has been cited extensively by senators and by the media in a way that the organization feels is not accurate of their position.
Senator Tkachuk: Can we debate that here?
The Chair: I’ll ask Senator Woo to table the document and to read the document. He assured me that it was a one-pager. Senator Woo.
Senator Woo: Thank you, chair. This is a letter from Mr. Bjarne —
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chair, I understand what Senator Woo is trying to do. He’s in charge of the bill, but if he reads this letter in, maybe we’ll need more witnesses. If Senator Woo wants to take that chance, they might say things in the letter that a number of us may disagree with. Therefore we’d want to get to the truth of it.
My view is that it’s all over with, so I think we should go to clause by clause. If Senator Woo wants to take that risk —
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Tkachuk.
Is there agreement around the table and a consensus that we listen to Senator Woo?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I see we have the majority.
Senator Woo, please.
Senator Woo: Thank you, chair. I do this in the spirit of sharing information from an organization that is very material to the question of the Canada infrastructure bank and which has been cited very often in our debates in the past few weeks.
The letter is from Bjarne Graven Larsen, executive vice-president and chief investment officer of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. The letter reads, and I quote:
Dear Senator Woo:
The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (Teachers’) supports the creation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Teachers’ believes in the need for a vision that will guide the future of transformative infrastructure in Canada. Our country has the right pieces in place to lay this important foundation -- one that will fuel innovation, growth, productivity and job creation opportunities for generations to come. By harnessing the power of collaboration between public and private capital, the Canada Infrastructure Bank can identify the projects, create the partnerships and provide the long-term funding to help execute this vision.
The benefits are diverse. Saving taxpayer dollars will allow governments to focus more resources on projects that address social and environmental needs. Sources of capital to invest in these projects may well come from the large organizations, including our public service pension plans, that invest retirement funds on behalf of Canadians. This allows our citizens to invest in their own country’s future, and investments that fuel the security of the retirement system in turn will benefit the country as a whole.
We are in an environment where our productivity is declining as our demography ages, and time is truly of the essence to move things forward.
We urge the Senate of Canada to pass the Budget Bill as soon as possible so that the Canadian Infrastructure Bank can be created and Canadians can begin to benefit from its work. The time for the Infrastructure Bank is now.
Regards,
Bjarne
Thank you, chairman.
The Chair: Are there any questions on what was read by Senator Woo? If not, then we will move on.
Senator Day: I assume that Senator Woo read this out because he wants us to be moved by the contents of the letter. I think it’s a highly improper process, when we’re here to do clause by clause, to be receiving more evidence at this stage.
Senator Andreychuk: I think Senator Day has covered part of what I wanted to say, but we have now set what I think to be a highly irregular precedent. If we’ve allowed it now, then any one of us can come just before clause by clause and further what we believe is a position that we want disclosed.
We’ve done it. It’s a precedent. I want it noted that it was done, because maybe some of us will want to do that in the future.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Andreychuk. Are there any other comments on Senator Woo? If not, the chair recognizes that it was informative and we are now moving —
Senator Eaton: Chair, may I also add that it was perhaps informative but very one-sided, because there are others who don’t believe that argument. We are not allowed to present evidence or read letters. Had we known, we might have brought supporting documents as well.
The Chair: Thank you for the comment, Senator Eaton. Now we will move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed, with leave, that the clauses be grouped according to the four parts of the bill as described in the Table of Provisions of Bill C-44?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I want to inform the committee that we will proceed through Part 4 by division. Why we are going to proceed by division is because we have 21 divisions in Part 4.
[Translation]
I have just noticed that the leader of the Conservative Party is present. Would you like to introduce yourself?
Senator Smith: Larry Smith.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Would you like to introduce yourself too, Senator Black?
[English]
Senator Black: Doug Black, Alberta. I sit on the Banking Committee, and I’m here as a fascinated spectator.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Black.
Honourable senators, shall Part 1, entitled “Amendments to the Income Tax Act and to Related Legislation,” which contains clauses 2 to 34, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Honourable senators, shall Part 2, entitled “Amendments to the Excise Tax Act (GST/HS T Measures),” which contains clauses 35 to 41, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Honourable senators, shall Part 3, entitled “Amendments to the Excise Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1,” which contains clauses 42 to 67, carry?
Senator Marshall: No.
The Chair: At this point I will recognize Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have a number of amendments to propose. It relates to the escalator clause. That is the terminology we have been using. It is referred to as the “inflationary adjusted year” under “Annual adjustments.” I have amendments to seven parts of that section.
I am going to vote against clauses 42, 43, 49 and 50, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
I also have amendments to clauses 44, 64 and 65.
Shall I proceed, Mr. Chair, with my proposed amendments?
The Chair: They will be distributed to each senator, please.
As advised by the clerk, with what was presented and then circulated to each and every senator from Senator Marshall, the question from the chair would be: Shall clause 42 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it on division?
Senator Marshall: No. We need a recorded vote.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see there are numerous senators, and we will proceed to a roll-call vote.
Senator Marshall: What it does, Senator Eggleton, is that right now the excise taxes are going to be increased. I don’t have a problem with the increases that are there in dollar amount, but it’s the CPI; it’s the indexation that we’ve discussed previously. It leaves the increases there for the dollar amounts. The only thing it affects are the escalators. That’s why some clauses are deleted and others are amended.
The Chair: Any other questions following the comments of the mover?
Senator Pratte: Just to clarify, getting rid of the escalator clause, that’s deleting clauses 42 and 43. Is that it?
Senator Marshall: No, 42 is on the beer and 43 is almost like a housekeeping item. Clause 49 would be on the spirits, and the other one would be on the wine. The three things are done separately.
Senator Pratte: All right, thank you.
The Chair: If there’s no additional information or any questions, honourable senators, we will now be proceeding to a roll call. The clerk of the committee will call members’ names, beginning with the chair, and then going in alphabetical order. Senators should verbally indicate whether they vote for or against or abstain on clause 42.
Senator Tkachuk: By defeating the clause, it deletes it, just so we all know. It is just a portion of the escalator.
The Chair: It is just a portion of the escalator. Is there any additional information?
Senator Marshall: It’s all of the escalator. The dollar value of the increase will be preserved in the legislation. That’s what’s in the act right now; but there’s also the escalator added to that, so it’s only the escalator.
Ms. Lemay: Clause 42 is just on the escalator.
Senator Marshall: Clause 42 is just on the escalator. If you look at 42, it defines the formula. It tells how the rounding will be done. It’s solely on the escalator, yes.
The Chair: Shall clause 42 carry?
Senator Marshall: No.
Senator Cools: Agreed, yes.
The Chair: There will be a roll call. Bear with us, honourable senators.
[Translation]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Mockler?
Senator Mockler: No.
[English]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Andreychuk?
Senator Andreychuk: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Bellemare?
Senator Bellemare: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Campbell?
Senator Campbell: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Cools?
Senator Cools: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Day?
Senator Day: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: No.
[English]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: No.
[English]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: No.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Marshall?
Senator Marshall: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Moncion?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: No.
[Translation]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Pratte?
Senator Pratte: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
The Chair: The chair will recognize Senator Smith for the vote.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: No.
Ms. Lemay: Yeas, six; nays, eleven.
The Chair: The nays have it.
Ms. Lemay: The nays have it.
The Chair: Honourable senators, on clause 42 the roll call for the record is: “no,” eleven; “yes,” six. Therefore, clause 42 is defeated.
Senator Marshall: Clause 43 is a smaller clause. It’s more like housekeeping because it refers to several sections of the legislation, but one of the sections is 170.2 and we just deleted that when we voted to delete clause 42. Therefore, that has to be amended. That has to pass.
Senator Tkachuk: It hasn’t passed.
Senator Marshall: That will also have to be voted against.
Senator Eggleton: That doesn’t affect anything else.
Senator Marshall: No. The only thing that changes is the reference to 170.2.
Senator Fraser: Are those sections already covered in another section of the act?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
The Chair: The chair will also recognize Senator Forest for comments.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have a question for clarification. Since clause 42 has been defeated, then, for reasons of consistency in the text, we have no need to vote on clause 170.2 again.
[English]
Senator Marshall: No, it’s just that clause 43 has an amendment there that includes 170.2. Since it’s now been voted against in clause 42, the 170.2 is no longer relevant, right? That’s why we have to amend clause 43.
The Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 43 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I see that the “nays” have the majority, so on division.
Senator Eaton: Why on division? Let’s do a recorded vote. It’s not on division. There were more nays.
The Chair: The chair will recognize that the nays have it in the majority.
Clause 43 is adopted, on division.
Senator Eaton: No, we want a recorded vote. It’s a “no.”
Senator Marshall: We want a recorded vote.
The Chair: Defeated.
Senator Fraser: We just had a voice vote.
Senator Day: I’m taking Senator Marshall’s word for it.
The Chair: Honourable senators, are there any other amendments to Part 3?
The chair will recognize Senator Marshall on Part 3.
Senator Marshall: My next amendment is to clause 44, on pages 25 and 26 of the bill. That section on beer has now been amended. This amends the original legislation to integrate the adjustment, the escalator amount. We’re just rewording it so that it removes all reference to the escalator.
For example, it will preserve the dollar amount increase. If you look at beer, on page 25, and you go to page 26, you can see where it says it’s now $31.84. That’s per hectolitre, because we’re removing (b) where we’re talking about the escalator.
We’re leaving $31.84 intact. Last year, it was $31.22. That’s the dollar amount of the increase, so that’s okay. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s all the references to the escalator that are being changed around. We preserve the $31.84, we preserve the $15.92, and we preserve the $2.643. That’s all preserved. It’s only the escalator that I’m taking out.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, honourable senators?
At this stage I would ask Senator Marshall to read her amendment.
Senator Eggleton: We have it in front of us.
The Chair: Is that satisfactory?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Marshall: I’m moving:
THAT Bill C-44 be amended in clause 44,
(a) on page 25,
(i) by replacing line 32 with the following:
“44(1)Parts II and II.1 of the schedule to the Excise Act”, and
(ii) by replacing lines 34 and 35 with the following:
“1 On all beer or malt liquor containing more than 2.5% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $31.84 per hectolitre.”; and
(b) on page 26, by replacing lines 1 to 14 with the following:
“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, $15.92 per hectolitre.
“3 On all beer or malt liquor containing not more than 1.2% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $2.643 per hectolitre.”.
That’s the amendment for clause 44.
The Chair: Are there any questions from the senators?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: This is not a question, but I go back to what I was saying earlier: before all that, we made an amendment that eliminated the indexing from the start. So the rest is a matter of consistency. I do not feel that we have to make amendments to each clause that deals with the tax. The tax was previously withdrawn. So we do not have to amend each clause in the text. Perhaps I am mistaken, because I am still “under warranty” as a junior senator. But it seems to me that, in legal texts, the issue of consistency always applies.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Yes, we do. If we’re to remove reference to the escalator clause, we have to remove the reference to the consequential amendments.
If you look at clause 44 that I just spoke about on page 26 of the legislation in front of you, Senator Forest, I can give you an example. If you look at the top, you will see paragraph (a). It says, “$31.84.” Paragraph (b) says:
(b) if the rate referred to in paragraph (a) has been adjusted under subsection 170.2(2), the adjusted rate.
That’s the escalator clause they’re talking about. We have to take that out.
The Chair: Are there any other comments or questions?
Honourable senators, do you agree with Senator Marshall’s proposed amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Senator Cools: No, on division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division, a voice vote.
Senator Cools: We can just keep repeating it.
Senator Eaton: It is the same people that voted at the beginning. It’s still on division.
The Chair: On division.
Senator Marshall: Shall I keep going, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Please.
Senator Marshall: My next amendment is on clause 49. This is the section of the bill that talks about spirits and the escalator for spirits. That’s all that’s there.
I’m moving that clause 49 be deleted because it talks about the escalator clause for spirits.
The Chair: Honourable senators, as proposed by Senator Marshall, shall clause 49 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: The senators who want to remove it should say “no.”
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: And the ones who want it to stay should say “yes.”
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I see the “nays” will carry it, on division.
Senator Eaton: It’s deleted.
Senator Cools: Nothing is deleted until it’s deleted. It’s defeated right now.
The Chair: It is defeated, like the previous ones were also defeated.
Senator Marshall: Clause 50 is removing the inflationary clause for wine, and that’s all that’s there. It talks about what the inflationary adjusted year is, what the annual adjustment is, how you round it, and it defines the Consumer Price Index, et cetera. I’m voting against that section also.
The Chair: Are there any other questions on clause 50 as moved by Senator Marshall? If not, shall clause 50 carry, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Cools: Yes.
The Chair: Defeated, on division.
Senator Marshall: I have two other amendments. The first one is on clause 64.
I move:
THAT Bill C-44 be amended in clause 64 on page 37,
(a) by replacing the references after the heading “SCHEDULE 4” on line 7 with the following:
“(Sections 122, 123 and 159.1)”;
(b) by replacing lines 8 to 17 with the following:
“1 Spirits $11.930 per litre of absolute ethyl alcohol contained in the spirits.
2 Spirits containing not more than 7% absolute ethyl alcohol by volume: $0.301 per litre.”; and
(c) by replacing the references after line 21 with the following:
“(Sections 122, 123, 159.1, 217 and 218)”.
What that one does is similar to when we were talking about the beer. There’s a reference in there where it’s talking about the escalator clause. We have to remove the reference to the escalator clause because we’ve already deleted those sections of the bill, or we’ve already voted against those sections of the bill.
Senator Tkachuk: You moved that motion.
Senator Marshall: Yes, I started off by moving it. That’s the spirits. It’s identical to the beer.
Then the last one is the wine, and that would be identical.
The Chair: Let us move with the first one. It has been read for the record.
Are there any questions on the amendment presented by Senator Marshall?
Do you agree with Senator Marshall’s proposed amendment to clause 64?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Senator Marshall’s amendment is carried.
Senator Marshall: My last amendment is on clause 65, at the bottom of page 37. Now we’re talking about the wine.
I move:
THAT Bill C-44 be amended in clause 65,
(a) on page 37,
(i) by replacing the references after the heading “SCHEDULE 6” on line 29 with the following:
“(Sections 134, 135 and 159.1)”, and
(ii) by replacing lines 31 to 33 with the following:
“(a) in the case of wine that contains not more than 1.2% of absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $0.0209 per litre;”; and
(b) on page 38,
(i) by replacing lines 1 to 16 with the following:
“(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, $0.301 per litre; and
(c) in the case of wine that contains more than 7% of absolute ethyl alcohol by volume, $0.63 per litre.”, and
(ii) by replacing the references after line 20 with the following:
“(Sections 134, 135, 159.1, 217, 218, 242, 243 and 243.1)”.
That section does the same as what we did for the spirits and the beer. There’s a reference there to the escalator. That has all been changed in three places, but the tax increase that’s being put forward for this year is preserved. That’s what that does.
Then all my references to these sections 134, 135 and 159.1 are similar to what I was saying at the beginning. It’s almost like housekeeping. In voting against a clause, there might be a section within that clause that’s going to be removed. Therefore, we have to make it consistent and remove it in the amendment.
That’s the end of my amendments, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: On this amendment, do we have any questions from the senators?
If not, is Senator Marshall’s amendment carried?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Honourable senators, shall Part 3, entitled “Excise Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1,” which contains clauses 42 to 67, carry, with the exception, as amended, removing clauses 42, 43, 49 and 50?
Senator Marshall: And amending 44, 64 and 65?
The Chair: As amended.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
Honourable senators, we’re making progress.
Part 4: “Various Measures.” We have 21 divisions. As shared at the beginning, we will proceed with all divisions individually.
Shall Part 4, Division 1, entitled “Special Import Measures Act”, which contains clauses 68 to 102, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 4, Division 2, entitled “Public Debt”, which contains clauses 103 to 107, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Senator Cools: I almost thought it was unanimous.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 4, Division 3, entitled “Financial Sector Stability,” which contains clauses 108 to 112, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 4, Division 4, entitled “Shared Services Canada Act,” which contains clauses 113 and 114, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall Part 4, Division 5, entitled “Payment to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research”, which contains clause 115, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall Part 4, Division 6, entitled “Financial Assistance for Students,” which contains clauses 116 to 121, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
Shall Part 4, Division 7, entitled “Parliamentary Budget Officer and Board of Internal Economy,” which contains clauses 122 to 191, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cools: Let the record show that it was unanimous.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 4, Division 8, entitled “Investment Canada Act”, which contains clauses 192 to 194, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 4, Division 9, entitled “Funding for Home Care Services and Mental Health Services,” which contains clause 195, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 4, Division 10, entitled “Judges Act,” which contains clauses 196 to 228, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
[Translation]
Shall part 4, division 11, entitled “Support for Families: Benefits and Leaves”, which contains clauses 229 to 269, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall part 4, division 12, entitled “Canadian Forces Members and Veterans”, which contains clauses 270 to 299, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall part 4, division 13, entitled “Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”, which contains clauses 300 to 305, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
Shall Part 4, Division 14, entitled “Employment Insurance Act,” which contains clauses 306 to 311, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 4, Division 15, entitled “Agreements — Minister of Transport,” which contains clauses 312 to 316, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 4, Division 16, entitled “Food and Drugs Act,” which contains clause 317, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 4, Division 17, entitled “Labour and Employment Laws,” which contains clauses 318 to 402, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 4, Division 18, entitled “Canada Infrastructure Bank Act,” which contains clauses 403 to 406, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 4, Division 19, entitled “Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act,” which contains clauses 407 to 441, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 4, Division 20, entitled “Invest in Canada Act,” which contains clauses 442 to 450, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall Part 4, Division 21, entitled “Modernization of Service Fees,” which contains clauses 451 to 457, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Senator Cools: Was it carried or not?
The Chair: It was carried, on division.
Honourable senators, shall Schedule 1 on page 288 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Schedule 2 on pages 289 to 290 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Is it agreed that I report Bill C-44, as amended, to the Senate of Canada?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Honourable senators, thank you very much for your cooperation and your presence.
(The committee adjourned.)