We are now on new clause 51.1 and we have NDP-36.1.
Before I ask Mr. Cullen to speak to that, I have to say I have some concerns about the relevance and admissibility of this one.
This amendment proposes changes to the regulations accompanying the Income Tax Act, dealing with tar sands ore. I have two concerns about the admissibility of this amendment, which I would like the member to address in his presentation.
First, as the committee has already heard, an amendment must always be relevant to the subject matter of the bill. This rule is expressed on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Marleau and Montpetit.
As I look at it, the bill is concerned with greenhouse gases, air pollution, the classification of energy-using products, and the establishment of motor vehicle fuel consumption standards. On initial examination, the relevance of this amendment is not clear to me, and I would appreciate it if the honourable member could establish that.
Secondly, the amendment is proposing tax measures. I would appreciate an explanation of the impact. Let me explain why. If the amendment seeks 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 House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Marleau and Montpetit, an amendment is also 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.
So I would appreciate, Mr. Cullen, if you could address those points during your remarks.
I'll hear from other members as well before making a decision.