Evidence of meeting #90 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was brown.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Acting Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Yes, and I am not aware of any other project that may have been prepared by the department in respect of this bill for submission to our—
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Ablonczy....
I have to ask two people, Mr. Pallister, I'm sorry, and I'm still not even sure if I'm asking the right people.
Ms. Ablonczy, are we comfortable with the bill, with the 39 amendments as is?
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I am not very comfortable with this. We are being asked to amend a very complex bill. The amendments are coming to us today. I am prepared to trust the government and its officials. But, in the past, we have seen the unfortunate consequences of changes of this nature. The responsibility for passing or not passing these amendments is ours.
As we have not been briefed on this bill or on these amendments, I would like to be given a complete overview of the amendments. If we have enough information, we can move to a vote at the end of the meeting. If not, we can finish the clause-by-clause study in another meeting.
This is a parliamentary committee. We are discussing serious matters which have considerable financial impact on people with significant income. There were no amendments proposed last Tuesday, so I am very surprised that we could not have been told that changes were possible. Today, it is as if someone were trying to make us swallow something without our having tasted and digested it, without knowing what is in it.
I would like all the amendments and their implications to be presented, and for us to be given examples so that we have an idea of what they mean. If we cannot do that today, we can do it later. This bill has been in the works since 1999, so I do not think that another day will make a difference.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Mr. Crête, you made a suggestion that you're not comfortable dealing with the bill. That's a committee decision, and I would suggest that if you wish to advance that concept you propose a motion at this point in time to hoist until Tuesday. You're giving me notice that you wish to do so. I have to deal with the motion before us now first.
Is that what you would like to do?
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I want to be sure that we have all the necessary information before making our decision, I do not want us to be panicked into making it. Does this mean we have to wrap it up today? We will see if it has to take the form of a specific motion.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Clearly, committee, I have to deal with the motion that's before us from Madam Ablonczy.
I would say it's implicit, in your voting on this motion, that if you are uncomfortable about dealing with this in the timeframe you've been given, then you simply have to vote against the motion as it's presented, and then we'll move to Mr. Crête's motion thereafter. If you're not uncomfortable, then I would suggest to you that if, based on the comments you've heard thus far, you have a degree of comfort in dealing with it, you pass the amendment. We will then dispose of Mr. Crête's motion quickly.
First, I have to again deal with clause 2, which is before us.
John, if this is a.... I thought we'd deal with the motion first.
Pardon me?
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Yes, I'm dealing with Madam Ablonczy's motion first. We have a motion on the floor right now, and that's Madam Ablonczy's, for clause 2.
The motion is that clause 2 pass. We've had discussion on clause 2 interspersed with discussion about the process and so on ever since it was introduced.
Mr. McCallum, you would like to speak to clause 2. Please proceed.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I'm speaking on the same subject we've been speaking on for the last several minutes; that is, it's a question of process and accountability.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Mr. McCallum, I want to be clear.
What's before us is clause 2, and I'll repeat: if you'd like to speak to the process issue, that's fine. I've tried to give as much latitude as I can, but my patience is wearing thin.
Mr. Crête has given notice to me and to the committee, colleagues, that he would like to present a motion to hoist until Tuesday. I will proceed to that motion and discussion on it, but only after we have disposed of clause 2. We will deal with clause 2 first.
12:40 p.m.
An hon. member
Point of order.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Again, my suggestion to committee members, in the interests of their time and of dealing with the issue fairly, is this: if they wish to hoist and to discuss Mr. Crête's motion leading to a hoist until Tuesday—if that's their wish—vote against this clause so that we can dispose of it now, and we'll move to that.
Is that all right?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
In light of there being some discomfort in the committee on this issue, I'd like to withdraw my motion.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
If the committee wishes, I would suggest we suspend for a few minutes so that we can have a discussion on this, and then perhaps we'd be better able to decide together how to best proceed.
(Motion withdrawn)
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I share Ms. Ablonczy's view; she is suggesting that we suspend the session for a few minutes to look at the situation. I am worried about two things. The first is whether we have enough information...
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
