Evidence of meeting #88 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Thank you so much.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 19 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 20 to 23 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 24)
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
These are most of our real estate amendments that we dropped. Anything to do with real estate—
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Well, we got them a little late. I don't think they'll pass. They're highly technical, so I think we would just drop all the amendments related to real estate.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Le président Conservative Brian Pallister
Shall clause 43 carry?
(Clause 43 agreed to on division.)
(On clause 44)
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Amendment G-3. We are now on clause 44, on page 28 of your amendments book.
Madam Ablonczy.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chairman, this extends the date for delivery of a fuel-efficient automobile from July 2007 to October 2007, as a practical matter. It appeared that time for delivery did need to be extended, so that is what this amendment effects. That's on page 49, right at the end of subclause 44(2).
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Mr. Pacetti, you submitted an amendment that proposes that we delete the clause; however, if you simply vote against the clause, that would be a non-admissible amendment--
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Perhaps I could just speak to clause 44, and then we can decide whether we vote for it or against it.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I'm going to be very brief, Mr. Chairman. It's just based on the testimony we heard yesterday from Mr. Nantais from the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, and I think it's also going to help some of the people around the table.
Also, in today's Globe and Mail, we have where Mr. Flaherty has decided to change his mind, just in case anybody hasn't spoken to him. I'm just going to quote two items in the newspaper article. One item is what Mr. Nantais said yesterday. It reads:
At a time when facilities are being closed in many regions of the world because of global overcapacity--including some in Canada--capital is no longer fixed and can be moved globally and every dollar on the bottom line is being counted.
If we keep that in mind, we can go on and see what Mr. Flaherty is now saying, subsequent to yesterday's testimony by Mr. Nantais. The item reads:
Mr. Flaherty suggested, however, that the fuel-efficiency cut-off point for the subsidy could be revised in the future.
“That can change over time,” Mr. Flaherty said.
If Mr. Flaherty feels that way, I think we should just put off clause 44, vote against it, and when he's ready, reintroduce it.
This is an olive branch, as they say. I see Mr. Dykstra and some of the other members looking at me, but it's going to help the people from Ontario more than it's going to help people from Quebec.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I don't know if the Finance officials have anything to contribute to that.
4:35 p.m.
A witness
Happily for me, it's somebody from a different division.
4:35 p.m.
Alex Lessard Tax Policy Officer, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I believe you referred to the 6.5%, so you referred to the rebate part of the EI.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
The feebate. Yes, the whole thing.
I'm not against it, but I'm just looking at....
Based on the testimony I have here, I'm quoting what Mr. Flaherty said. If he's willing to revise it in the future, why don't we just revise the policy in the future?
4:40 p.m.
Lise Potvin Director, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy, Department of Finance
My understanding is that this amendment would have the effect of eliminating the green levy altogether.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Clause 44 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clauses 45 to 48 inclusive agreed to on division)
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a very responsible proposal to the bill. It pertains, of course, to the visitor GST rebate program and the changes that were made. I know we can't make any amendments to this bill that would cause the deletion of this whole area or change the amounts of money involved; however, we can call for a review of this provision after a period of time. I'm recommending a year after amendments come into force, so we can determine whether the concerns of the tourism industry and many of the other organizations that came to see us, like the hotel association, are legitimate and whether or not there's been a serious impact on tourism, on visits from other countries, and the health of the industry as a whole.
I would urge folks to approve this. It follows some concerns we read about in the paper, in the news, just this past week about some German and Dutch operators who say they're going to stop selling Canadian tour packages this year because of these changes to the GST rebate program for foreign visitors.
I think the best we can do today, since there's probably no will to delete the clause and go back to the full GST rebate program, is to have a timely review and to then have that reported back to Parliament.