Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
Download as PDF

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE

EVIDENCE


OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 12, 2017

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m., in public and in camera, to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. My name is Percy Mockler, a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. At this time, 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, starting on my left.

Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.

[Translation]

Senator Pratte: Senator André Pratte from Quebec.

Senator Bellemare: Diane Bellemare from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.

Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.

[Translation]

Senator Forest: Senator Éric Forest from the Gulf region, in Quebec.

[English]

Senator Marwah: Sarabjit S. Marwah, Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you, senators. This morning, we will have two meetings. One will be dealing with Bill C-63 in public and then at the end we will have an in camera meeting.

I would like to recognize the clerk of the committee, Gaëtane Lemay, and our two analysts, Sylvain Fleury and Alex Smith, who team up to support the work of this committee.

[Translation]

Colleagues and members of the viewing public, we are now about to begin going through Bill C-63 clause by clause. But before we do this, I would like to remind senators of a number of points.

[English]

I know 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 for Canadians.

If at any point in time 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 developing in front of us.

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 the clause. This means 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 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 to do so with due diligence.

[Translation]

If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind 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.

[English]

I would also remind 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 the bill.

In this spirit, 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 or an impact. 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.

We are also joined, in the public gallery today, by officials of the Department of Finance. If you have any questions, they can help us to bring clarity.

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.

[Translation]

If members ever have questions about process or the propriety of anything going on, they can raise a point of order. The chair will listen to argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of the matter of order, and make a ruling.

[English]

Honourable senators, the committee, of course, is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds set on it by the Senate of Canada, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.

As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend on your cooperation, and I ask all of you to think of other senators and to keep your remarks to the point and as brief as possible with due diligence.

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 show of hands, the cleanest route is to request a roll call vote, which provides clear results. Senators, are we aware that any tied vote negatives the motion in question? Are there any questions on any of the above matters? Senators, are there any questions on the information I just shared with you?

Senator Neufeld: I have one question to bring me up to date. I know the membership has changed in the last while. Can you tell me how many independent senators are members of this committee, how many Conservative senators are members of this committee, and how many Liberal senators are members of this committee?

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Neufeld. We will answer that question.

Senators, so that everybody is clear on who is a member of the committee in good standing and is, therefore, allowed to move a motion and to vote on any motion at the table this morning, I would ask the clerk to read out loud the membership list as it stands this morning.

[Translation]

Madam Clerk, please provide the names of the members of the committee.

[English]

Gaëtane Lemay, Clerk of the Committee: Just to answer Senator Neufeld’s question about the membership, it is five Conservatives, five from the Independent Senators Group and two from the Liberals.

I will list the names, starting with the chair, Senator Mockler, and then the members alphabetically, as of today, because there are some replacements today: Senator Andreychuk, Senator Cools, Senator Day, Senator Dean, Senator Eaton, Senator Forest, Senator Jaffer, Senator Marshall, Senator Marwah, Senator Neufeld and Senator André Pratte. There are also four ex officio members and their possible replacements, and those four are: Senator Woo, Senator Smith, Senator Day and Senator Harder. Each of them has one or more replacements possible.

Senator Marwah: I just want to mention that I hadn’t realized that I was a replacement. I’m here as the sponsor of the bill. I was just going to be an observer.

Ms. Lemay: But you are a member of the committee this morning.

Senator Marwah: I am? Okay.

The Chair: Any other questions, senators?

Now that we are clear on the question that was posed to us, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-63, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: It is agreed.

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: Honourable senators, is it agreed, with leave, that the clauses be grouped according to the five parts of the bill, as described in the table of provisions of Bill C-63?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall Part 1, entitled “Amendments to the Income Tax Act and Related Legislation,” which contains clauses 2 to 105, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Chair: On division.

Shall Part 2, entitled “Amendments to the Excise Tax Act and to Related Legislation (GST-HST Measures),” which contains clauses 106 to 164, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: On division.

Shall Part 3, entitled “Excise Act,” which contains clauses 165 to 168, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: On division.

Shall Part 4 entitled “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act,” which contains clauses 169 to 171, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Chair: On division?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Chair: If there is a lack of clarity, we will ask for a voice vote. Are there questions?

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I do not know whether we are moving toward an amendment or simply a rejection of this part of the bill, but I would like to point out that this goes against the principle of the bill. There will be a vote, but earlier, did you say that we could not move an amendment?

The Chair: Senator Bellemare, what I said is that, personally, as chair, I have not received any notice of amendment, but amendments may be proposed as part of our study on Part 4 this morning. It’s a vote on Part 4.

Shall Part 4, entitled “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act,” which contains clauses 169 to 171, carry?

I just heard senators express their choice. Some say no and others say yes. Since there is no unanimity, I will ask the clerk to proceed to a roll call vote.

Senator Forest: We could do that, but I would like to understand why my colleagues are voting against it.

Senator Eaton: Because we disagree.

Senator Forest: Why?

The Chair: Honourable senators, I ask you to speak one at a time. Senator Forest asked a question. I see that Senator Eaton has a comment, and I will give the floor to Senator Marshall afterwards.

Senator Eaton: Having studied this part, I disagree and I vote against it.

[English]

Senator Marshall: I don’t think we have to give an explanation why we are voting against it, but I can share my feelings with you on it.

We asked the officials questions regarding this act on the cannabis legislation, and we didn’t get any information. In fact, after the meeting, I did say to one of my colleagues on the committee, when we were in the elevator, that I’m sure the Department of Finance officials have information but they’re just not sharing it with us at committee.

We see yesterday that there is a lot of information coming out as a result of the federal-provincial meetings that were held during the weekend, and that information must have been available last week when we were questioning the officials. Someone should have said to us whether that information was confidential at that time, but we were certainly led to believe that the information was not available.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I would like the minutes to reflect the following. Even though I do not have the right to vote — 

The Chair: You have the right to vote, madam.

Senator Bellemare: Thank you for letting me know.

For the benefit of those listening to us, I would like to point out that these provisions are very general and give the Minister of Finance the authority to debate with the provinces on profit sharing or revenue sharing issues in relation to the Cannabis Act. It is therefore very clear that these clauses are quite imprecise. They simply give permission or authority to the Minister of Finance to talk to the provinces.

It is very difficult for officials to give specific details about deliberations that are taking place. We were able to see that discussions took place with provincial finance ministers yesterday. They agreed on how to share the profits from the sale of cannabis. Provinces will be entitled to 75 per cent of the revenue, while the federal government will have 25 per cent.

I just wanted to clarify that. The vote is about giving the Minister of Finance the power to negotiate with the provinces. Based on the questions that some senators have asked, I understand why this clause is being opposed.

[English]

Senator Dean: Currently the part of the act that we’re talking about, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, doesn’t provide the necessary authorities for the Minister of Finance to enter into or conclude cannabis taxation agreements with provinces and territories, which is at the heart of this act and reflects similar federal-provincial approaches.

As a Senate, we had lots of fresh news yesterday and all of it positive. For those of us, on all sides of the Senate, who are concerned about an appropriate division of revenues for provinces and territories, for those of us who have been saying that the federal government should step forward with more resources for harm reduction, public health information, for information that we don’t have today under the current criminalization approach to cannabis, yesterday’s news was good news across the board.

Provincial and territorial finance ministers were very clear yesterday that it is good news across the board. I suspect that they would like the federal finance minister to have the authority to conclude those agreements in the event that, in July or before, Bill C-45, which would strictly regulate cannabis, is approved by the Senate. That would be a reasonable expectation.

You have more news; you have more information. I think it’s provident information. I would take this opportunity to congratulate both the Minister of Finance and provincial and territorial finance ministers for taking a very big step forward yesterday. We are now talking about giving the federal Minister of Finance the ability to firm that up and to conclude those agreements, and I believe that it is our responsibility to do that.

Senator Pratte: I understand that there may be lots of apprehension with the legalization of marijuana, but I have difficulty on why some might oppose this part of the bill because, as others have said, it only gives the minister the authority to engage in the negotiations with the provincial governments so that the provincial governments have the necessary financial resources to prepare for legalization. Many people have said that there is a risk that provinces will not be ready in time.

Well, one thing is certain: If they don’t have the financial resources, they won’t be ready in time. If the federal finance minister does not have the authority to negotiate with the provinces to have the financial resources, well of course they won’t be ready in time.

If we defeat this part of the bill, then the minister doesn’t have the authority to negotiate with provinces and the provinces don’t have the financial resources and they are not ready in time.

I have difficulty following the reasoning that would deprive the minister of this simple authority to negotiate with provinces. We are not saying what the result of those negotiations will be. We’re not saying anything about the legalization of marijuana, per se. We are just giving the minister the authority to negotiate.

So I really have difficulty understanding the reasoning behind defeating this part of the bill in particular. I can’t follow that reasoning at all. I’m sorry.

Senator Marwah: I want to echo Senator Pratte’s comments. All this bill does is allow the minister to enter into a coordinated cannabis taxation framework. As you can see from yesterday’s announcement, that was essentially negotiated yesterday. The questions that are being asked of the officials, which is about wanting more information on the dollars involved and the impact on municipalities, that is of relevance when the cannabis bill comes in six or eight months or whenever it does come.

I don’t think it has any bearing or relevance to this portion of the bill. I don’t see why people object to this portion. All it does is give the minister authority to negotiate. Negotiations have already taken place.

Senator Eaton: I’m sorry you can’t follow the arguments. Yes, they came to an agreement with the provinces, which was wonderful. The real people who will face the day-to-day things are the municipalities. The federal government was very clever: “Oh, here you go, provinces, 75 per cent.”

Now comes the real, hard negotiation. They really don’t care whether the provinces give municipalities anything for the police forces, the zoning, who’s going to grow it and where they can smoke it; it’s all municipalities.

The federal government was completely chicken to say, “We’re giving him the right.” He did a quarter of what he should have done. He did the easy part, not the hard part. Had he done the hard parts yesterday and said, “Okay, provinces, this is what you get, and municipalities, this is what you get,” I would respect that.

We’ve seen, with our own infrastructure, the promises the Liberal government made to get $2 billion out the door. Why isn’t it all out the door? Because they can’t come to an agreement with the provinces and the municipalities.

The fight has just begun. This is a chicken way out for the minister; he has now washed his hands. He said, “Oh, I’ve given the provinces 75 per cent of the tax revenues.” The fight has yet to really start. If he’d been really brave and courageous, I would have applauded him had he done that with the municipalities yesterday. He did not do so. This is folly.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I would just like to respond to Senator Eaton. We are part of a Confederation, and the provinces will negotiate with the municipalities. We are not here to cause a constitutional crisis.

[English]

The Chair: Please, can I ask senators not to have arguments but to listen? The chair will recognize, with due diligence, the vote. In the process, we will listen to comments made by senators.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I shared my point of view. I can repeat what I said. For the public listening to us, this provision gives the Minister of Finance authority to enter into negotiations. Of course, the negotiations are starting. It is not up to the federal government to specify what amounts the provinces will receive and what amounts will be paid to municipalities according to their size and needs. We are in a process, and that’s why we need to start now.

The Chair: Do you have any further information on the voting process if you are asked to vote?

Senator Bellemare: I will have to abstain from voting because of an agreement between the leaders that ex officio members are not allowed to vote. It’s unfortunate, but that’s what happened.

Senator Forest: In my opinion, the part of Bill C-63 that gives the minister the authority to negotiate with the provinces is essential. It is a partnership between three partners: the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government. At the very least, the minister must have the legitimacy to negotiate those agreements, which will be the very basis for sharing the revenue from the excise tax according to the responsibilities of these levels of government. It is absolutely incomprehensible to oppose this part of the responsibility given to the minister. We will see whether the results will be useful or not, but at least the legitimacy of being able to negotiate is necessary.

[English]

Senator Andreychuk: I want to thank Senator Bellemare, because it has been confusing. Historically, the leadership does not vote. I think the original rules were to allow the leadership to go to any committee to understand what is going on because you’re in the leadership. But there wasn’t a vote, and from the documents I’ve received it wasn’t clear just what was happening and for how long. But I would encourage all leaders to be ex-officio so that we have a group of members who can participate constantly in a committee and contribute.

Leaders have so many other duties: You can only come at certain times, and I think your role is different. So thank you for clarifying that.

My observation on this and many other things that are going on, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, is that there has been no pre-planning. That’s the difficulty. There seem to be ideas that float, and some people like them and some people don’t, but there hasn’t been a strategy or a plan formed.

Anything as significant as the marijuana/cannabis issues are significantly going to change Canada. Some will argue that is good, some will argue that is bad, but it is the responsibility of the government to think ahead and to have an implementation strategy. It’s unfair to the provinces, it’s unfair to citizens and it’s unfair to future generations if we put this in.

I’m not arguing for or against any change; I’m simply saying the government has to rethink its strategy. It is not good governance to do it that way.

I might as well make my comments now on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and maybe you won’t have to listen to me later. It’s the same thing. We were told that this was going to give so many contracts for Canadian businesses. We know it didn’t happen under Bretton Woods and it’s not going to happen on this. Finally, the official said it is really an aid and a development issue for those countries so that they can prosper and then perhaps be trading partners way down the line.

The budget is riddled with statements that don’t allow for transparency and accountability. There is not enough implementation strategy. Regarding cannabis, we just cannot be hit with going from criminalization to a great debate about decriminalization and then all of sudden end up with legalization.

We had some compelling witnesses, including the Minister of Finance for Manitoba, who is an educator himself. He talked about how these are so significant to children, youth, families, communities and police forces that this is probably one of the most fundamental things we’re doing to change society, and we have no idea what everyone’s role will be or should be.

We spent more time with the previous government on a young offenders bill for years determining what is in the best interests of young people before we moved.

We’re moving here with unknowns. I just don't think it’s good governance, it’s not fair and it’s not accountable in the way that I understood it. But it is the government.

Senator Marshall: I have no further comments.

Senator Pratte: I have just a few words. Senator Eaton said earlier that the senator is disappointed with the result of yesterday’s negotiation and that the municipalities did not get enough.

Senator Eaton: They didn’t get anything.

Senator Pratte: Not yet. That’s a legitimate point of view, but the reaction to this is to push the Minister of Finance to do a better deal — not to deprive the minister of his negotiation authority. If he’s deprived of that, then not only can he not get a better deal, he cannot do anything. So not only municipalities won’t get anything, the provinces won’t get anything and nothing will happen. No one will get anything and there won’t be any resources for police forces, cities or provinces.

How does that advance the file in any way? Everything is blocked. That’s the result of not voting for this authority to the Minister of Finance. Everything is blocked. I don’t see how this is progress at all.

Senator Dean: When I walked in here today, I wasn’t expecting us to transition from a relatively simple approval of authority for a national finance minister to enter into a tax agreement with provinces and territories. That’s relatively straightforward. We do it all the time. You’ve done it in the past.

There’s absolutely nothing different about this. It’s extending an authority in a provision that is extant in the legislation. It should be straightforward. I’m absolutely astonished that we’re having this extended debate on it.

I understand — and I’m going to be direct about this — that there appears to be, on the part of some in the Senate and some outside of the Senate, a determination to delay certain pieces of legislation. I understand that. That’s fine.

I’m concerned that we might be seeing an extension of that here today, but that’s something that others will have to take responsibility for. I’ve talked about this before.

Look, we’ve transitioned to cannabis. That’s squarely on the table here in Bill C-45. So I’m going to say a couple of things about it. I didn’t introduce it. Somebody else did. It has to be answered.

We have, in this country today, a serious problem with cannabis. It’s not going to start on June 1 or July 1. We have it today. Our young people are amongst the highest consumers of cannabis in the world. That’s particularly the case for people between 19 and 24, but it’s high for those people between 12 and 18 as well: one in five, the statistics tell us.

We know that there are harms associated with cannabis, everything from consuming it through smoking it to impacts on mental health to impacts on young people who have pre-existing mental health conditions. We know about the impact on developing brains.

We’re dealing with an existing problem today, an existing challenge today. Those harms of cannabis have not been assisted by the decades-long approach to criminalizing this drug. Criminalization has failed. It’s been successful in saddling thousands of young people with criminal records, yes, but it hasn’t touched consumption rates.

This is an existing problem. We’re not making it up. It exists today. It’s not some future theoretical crisis that I keep hearing people talking about.

We have a $7 billion illicit market in cannabis in Canada. All of our kids, hundreds of thousands of young people, obtain their cannabis from that illicit market. It’s a market that produces cannabis that is untested for potency, untested for contaminants. I don’t think that’s okay, and I’m sure you don’t either.

Bill C-45 is an effort to wrap our arms around this problem, to keep cannabis out of the hands of kids, to get them better information that is disincented under a criminalization model. Harm reduction workers have been told, under this model of criminalization, not to provide sensible information to kids because it might somehow be seen to incent it. I don’t think that’s okay.

We’ve heard about planning and little thought being put into implementation. Wow. I think the concern actually here is that too much thought might have been put into planning and implementation. This is something that started with the Task Force on Cannabis in 2016, chaired by Anne McLellan and Mark Ware. They did extensive research and produced what I think is a very solid evidence-based report. The government accepted many of the recommendations in that report.

It has worked with provinces and territories for probably the last 18 months. I’ve been chatting with my colleagues in Ontario who have had extensive discussions —

The Chair: Honourable senators, I think that’s a debate.

Senator Dean: And opened up by my friends over here. Okay, I’ll stop. Respectfully, though. Respectfully.

Senator Andreychuk: Just on a point of privilege —

The Chair: Excuse me, Senator Andreychuk. Would you please state your point of privilege?

Senator Andreychuk: My point of privilege is that I did not go into the discussion of the bill. What I said was that this is predicated on whether we should give the authority to the minister. I’m saying that obviously the minister needs authority, but, in good planning, we should have known where the minister was going for practice, convention. I did not go into the merits of Bill C-45. I certainly will at some point, but not here. If we’re going to have that debate, then we all should have that debate. That’s my point of privilege.

The Chair: Thank you for the clarification.

Senator Dean, do you want —

Senator Dean: I’m fine. I’m happy to leave things where they are. Thank you.

The Chair: Honourable senators, as chair, I have to admit that I have listened to the arguments. Some have been repetitive. Some arguments can be used in your debate that will certainly take place in the Senate Chamber later on.

If there are no other comments to be made on Part 4, entitled “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act,” which contains clauses 169 to 171, the chair will recognize Senator Neufeld, and then we will proceed.

Senator Neufeld: Just a short question, sir. I know I asked who made up the committee, and I received that. I want to know who around this table is actually sworn in or who can vote. Senator Bellemare said she has to abstain. I need to know who around this table can actually vote.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Neufeld.

Again, for the record, can the clerk please name the senators who are entitled to vote now?

Senator Neufeld: That are here now.

Ms. Lemay: I can say that everybody here, every senator around the table, has the right to vote. I understand that Senator Bellemare decided not to in order to follow an agreement that is in existence between the leaders. But all of the senators here are currently members of the committee and have the right to move motions and to vote.

Senator Neufeld: Thank you.

The Chair: That’s the legality of it.

Is there a consensus, honourable senators, that we proceed to the vote?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Therefore, shall Part 4, entitled “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act,” which contains clauses 169 to 171, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Chair: I hear “no.” We will then proceed with a roll call vote.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Mockler?

The Chair: No.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Andreychuk?

Senator Andreychuk: Abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Bellemare?

Senator Bellemare: Abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Cools?

Senator Cools: No.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Dean?

Senator Dean: Yes.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Eaton?

Senator Eaton: No.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Forest?

Senator Forest: Yes.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Marshall?

Senator Marshall: No.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Marwah?

Senator Marwah: Yes.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Neufeld?

Senator Neufeld: Abstain.

[Translation]

Ms. Lemay: The Honorable Senator Pratte?

Senator Pratte: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Lemay: Yeas 4; nays 4; abstentions 3.

So the motion is negatived, which means this part is gone.

The Chair: Therefore, the votes will be recorded.

We will proceed to Part 5, Division 1.

[Translation]

Senator Forest: You cannot ask for a recount, can you?

[English]

The Chair: Shall Part 5, honourable senators, Division 1, entitled “Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act,” which contains clauses 172 to 175, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Marshall: On division.

The Chair: On division.

The Chair: Shall Part 5, “Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Agreement Act,” which contains clause 176, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Chair: I hear “no” and I hear “yes.” Are there any comments from senators?

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: I would just like to explain, for the benefit of the public — and I hope others will follow suit — that this is an opportunity for Canada, and especially for the Minister of Finance, to exercise their right to govern. We talk about governance here, that’s all. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any comments from senators?

If not, we will proceed to a roll call vote.

The motion is: Shall Part 5, entitled “Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Agreement Act,” which contains clause 176, carry? We will move on immediately to a roll call.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Mocker?

Senator Mockler: Abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Andreychuk?

Senator Andreychuk: Abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Bellemare?

Senator Bellemare: Abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Cools?

Senator Cools: Abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Dean?

Senator Dean: Yes.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Eaton?

Senator Eaton: No.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Forest?

Senator Forest: Yes.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Marshall?

Senator Marshall: No.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Marwah?

Senator Marwah: Yes.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Neufeld?

Senator Neufeld: Abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Pratte?

Senator Pratte: Yes.

Ms. Lemay: Yeas 4; nays 2; abstentions 5. Carried.

The Chair: It is carried.

Honourable senators, shall Part 5, Division 3, entitled “International Development Financing Agreements,” which contains clauses 177 to 179 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: Agreed,on division.

Honourable senators, shall Part 5, Division 4, entitled “Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act,” which contains clauses 180 to 184, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall Part 5, Division 5, entitled “Bank of Canada Act,” clauses 185, page 244, to 187, page 245, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall Division 5 entitled “Bank of Canada Act,” which contains clauses 185 to 187, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Honourable senators, shall Part 5, Division 6, entitled “Payment Clearing and Settlement Act,” which contains clauses 188 to 193 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: On division.

Shall Part 5, Division 7, entitled “Northern Pipeline Act,” which contains clause 194, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: Agreed, on division.

Honourable senators, shall Part 5, Division 8, entitled “Canada Labour Code,” which contains clauses 195 to 216, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: On division.

Shall Part 5, Division 9, entitled “Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1,” which contains clauses 217 to 218, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: Shall Part 5, Division 10, entitled “Trade within Canada and Harmonization of Energy Efficiency Requirements,” which contains clauses 219 to 229, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed.

Shall Part 5, Division 11, entitled “Judges Act,” which contains clauses 230 to 259, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: Agreed, on division.

Honourable senators, shall Part 5, Division 12, entitled “Business Development Bank of Canada Act,” which contains clause 260, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: Agreed, on division.

Shall Part 5, Division 13 entitled “Financial Administration Act,” which contains clause 261, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed.

Honourable senators, shall the Schedule, pages 289 to 317, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed.

Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: Agreed, on division.

Honourable senators, does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report, if any?

If there are no observations, we will move to comments for observations.

If not, honourable senators, is it agreed that I report this bill as amended?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Honourable senators, there are two items for future business. We will go in camera, please.

(The committee continued in camera.)

(The committee resumed in public.)

The Chair: Honourable senators, with your full cooperation, the chair has been asked to reconsider the vote.

Honourable senators, shall Part 4, entitled “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act,” which contains clauses 169 to 171, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: We are going to reconsider a vote. I will ask the clerk to call a new vote.

Shall Part 4, entitled “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act,” which contain clauses 169 to 171, carry?

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Mockler?

Senator Mockler: I will abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Andreychuk?

Senator Andreychuk: Abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Bellemare?

Senator Bellemare: Abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Cools?

Senator Cools: Abstain.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Dean?

Senator Dean: Yes.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Eaton?

Senator Eaton: No.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Forest?

Senator Forest: Yes.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Marshall?

Senator Marshall: No.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Marwah?

Senator Marwah: Yes.

Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Neufeld.

Senator Neufeld: Abstain.

[Translation]

Ms. Lemay: The Honorable Senator Pratte?

Senator Pratte: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Lemay: Yeas, 4; nays 2; abstentions, 5.

The Chair: Therefore, Part 4, entitled, “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act,” which contains clauses 169 to 171, is carried.

Senator Andreychuk: Now we have to go back to the full bill as reconsidered.

The Chair: Honourable senators, democracy is democracy. Shall the bill be carried?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chair: The bill is carried, on division.

Thank you, honourable senators. We will suspend to go back in camera.

(The committee continued in camera.)