Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 28th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I am prepared to make a judgment.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I have to clarify the record. I'll be very quick.

It is not a subsidy; it is a capital cost allowance that lets corporations write off their equipment and wearable products within a certain period of time. Those products wear out four to ten times faster than any other like-minded mining across the world. That is why they're allowed to do that. It's not a subsidy.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

They don't need it. They simply don't need it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

That is why this government has dealt with it accordingly, certainly in the marketplace.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There was $20 billion in profit last year, and this accounts for some--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Look at it over four years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Hold it. You're not going through the chair, and the chair gets cranky when you don't do that.

I am prepared to render a decision.

The amendment, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the situation, does seek to remove or reduce a tax exemption or a tax deduction. This would have the effect of placing an additional charge on the taxpayer. Such charges, as with all measures to create or increase taxes, must be preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion in the House.

As stated on page 655 of Marleau and Montpetit, an amendment is inadmissible “if it creates a new charge on the people that is not preceded by the adoption of a Ways and Means motion or not covered by the terms of a Ways and Means motion already adopted”.

Regardless of the argument about whether it's right or wrong, strictly from a legal point of view, and as defined in Marleau and Montpetit, I have to find it inadmissible.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Not only because I know you don't take these personally, Chair, but just because we read a different interpretation of it, I'll challenge that ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There's no debate on the challenge. It simply is whether or not the ruling of the chair shall be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair sustained) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The decision of the chair is sustained. Amendment NDP-36.1 is inadmissible; therefore, new clause 51.1 no longer exists.

There was a question about a break. We have one more clause in this section before we go back to all the clauses that were stood. Let's try to nail this one down, and then we'll take a small break.

(On clause 52)

There is one amendment to clause 52, and that is NDP-37, on page 63.

Mr. Cullen, please proceed with NDP-37.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

You will see one change in my reading of this. It's small, but important:

This Act comes into force sixty days after the day on which it receives royal assent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is there any debate on NDP-37?

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's not debate, just a friendly amendment. I was hoping Mr. Cullen might entertain a friendly amendment that talks about the act coming into force thirty days after the day on which it receives royal assent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'll see your thirty and raise you fifteen.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There's tradition in our law for various timelines for an act to receive royal assent. I'll take that as a friendly amendment and we'll move it to thirty days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is there any further debate on the amended motion?

(Motion agreed) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 52 as amended agreed to)

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Do we vote on the schedule or not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

No, not yet.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Not yet? Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We are at the end of part 3. We are now going to go back and start on the clauses that were stood. I would suggest that this may be a good spot for a ten-minute suspension.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, it's now almost 8:30. For us to have a break now....

We are scheduled to start again tomorrow morning. Could I suggest that this may be a good time to adjourn for the evening? I will stay longer, but I would suggest that if we're looking for a time to adjourn, this might be the opportune time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is there a motion to adjourn? I'm just testing the water.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I know we're into the so-called cleanup phase and are making things meet. There were some questions we had. As we've seen, sometimes there's time required to make the pieces fit, but I'm not sure what the workload is like or how much cleanup we have to do. If we deem it to be perhaps only an hour or two hours' worth, then tomorrow morning might make some sense. I don't get the sense that it's fifteen minutes or half an hour or less.

I know it's difficult for the clerks to....