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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Just one comment. If this happens to pass and we support it on this side, does that mean the NDP would support the budget?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I agree with the intent of this motion, but I think there are some technical problems with it. Perhaps the officials can help with that. I know my friend would be interested in that.
Also, if we're going to do something like this, it should not be in the context of an amendment to the budget; it should be a separate motion by this committee. I suggest the officials talk about the technical merits of this motion.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Pierre Mercille Chief, GST Legislation, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I'm not sure if your intent is to have a kind of analysis of the full measure in this budget to repeal the old visitor rebate and replace it with the more targeted program that is suggested in the budget, because the program goes from clause 45 to clause 51. It's something that would produce a report on section 48.
In the old program, if you were a visitor you could have a rebate for a hotel room. The new program is more targeted to hotel rooms included in tour packages.
There may be another issue about the timeline. You're giving 60 days after the end of the year to produce a report on that year following consultations. There may be a problem of availability of data that quickly, to be able to analyze something that just happened during the year. You are also asking for consultation before the report is produced.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Would my NDP colleague be prepared to consider that the committee is ready to accept an NDP motion reflecting this spirit? Such a motion would be deemed in order by all parties right now and would be examined at our next sitting, therefore allowing us to meet our objective, knowing the result. This way, we would obtain the desired result while at the same time eliminating the negative aspects mentioned by our witness. Those results raise other issues but they are nonetheless compelling arguments.
Should you agree that the committee proceed in this fashion, it would be interesting. The amendment could be either withdrawn or defeated. However, it would be better if it were withdrawn, providing that we have a guarantee that the committee would accept the proposal.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I would prefer that we keep this amendment to the bill in order to ensure that the impact of those changes would be reviewed. In answer to the officials, I would like to see a comprehensive study of this issue, including the changes announced by the government three months ago. This amendment may not be in the right place in the bill but it would be easy to change that.
In terms of the 60 day period to produce a report, it seems to me that we should try to comply. If there are no data allowing to conduct a comprehensive study, we could mention that in the report and ask for more time.
Consequently, I would choose to maintain this amendment and I would like to get the support of all committee members. If my colleagues are not prepared to adopt it today, I intend to make it into a motion to be submitted to the committee as soon as possible.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Fine. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clauses 49 to 60 inclusive agreed to on division)
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Sorry, Mr. Chair. Is it clause 61? You said clauses 49 to 60, didn't you? Yes, it's clause 61.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Clause 62 has NDP-2. All I'm saying is you missed clause 61. NDP-2 is on clause 62.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Okay. I had a misprint.
(Clause 61 agreed to on division)
(On clause 62--Enactment of Act)
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Okay, this is clause 62. You're suggesting we should propose to deal with NDP-3 first.
Do you want to deal with them together?