Evidence of meeting #49 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Diane Lafleur  Director, Financial Sector, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Vincent Jalbert  Senior Project Leader, Financial Crimes - Domestic, Financial Sector Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Denis Meunier  Director General, Enforcement and Disclosures Directorate, Compliance Programs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Order, please.

Welcome, Mr. Martin. Thank you for being here. I understand that you have some associates who will be joining us shortly, but we'll commence pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 24, 2006, Bill C-25, An Act to amend to Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

My colleagues will proceed. I will ask you whether various clauses that have no amendments attached to them shall carry, but I will stop the proceedings at the point of amendment. We also have an understanding with Mr. McCallum, who is currently drafting an amendment, that we will revert back to the appropriate clause. Even though it may have carried, we will revert back to it if that is indeed where it is determined that that amendment should be placed.

With that understanding, shall clause 1 carry?

Yes, Mr. McCallum?

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Chair, I've just found out where it goes.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

And it goes where?

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

It goes on line 3 on page 30.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Okay, it's for clause 38. We'll get to that one.

(Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to on division)

(On clause 3)

Clause 3 has an amendment submitted by Mr. Pacetti; however, such an amendment is inadmissible, being beyond the scope of the bill. I can read the ruling if Mr. Pacetti would wish. Otherwise, we'll proceed.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Yes, please.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Clause 3 proposes, among other things, to make an amendment to proposed paragraph 5(l) of the application section of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to include departments or agents of Her Majesty that sell prescribed precious metals. This amendment proposes to also include in this section persons in the business of money lending, including “payday lenders”, persons or entities in the business of selling new and used motorized vehicles, as well as persons in the business of buying and selling precious metals, stones, and jewellery. This broadens the scope of the application of the bill.

According to page 654 of Marleau and Montpetit, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In my view, this amendment goes beyond the scope of Bill C-25 and is therefore inadmissible.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Can we just get some clearance, Mr. Chairman?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Yes, Mr. Pacetti.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Are all my proposed amendments, L-1, L-2, and L-3, inadmissible? Because we spoke regarding....

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

No, Mr. Pacetti, only this one is inadmissible.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Only this one is?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Only this one is.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

But there are three points: there's L-1, L-2.... Can I amend my amendment?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

No, because your amendment is inadmissible, so amending it would be of little good to you.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Can I just go with L-3? Can I delete L-1 and L-2? We did speak about “persons and entities engaged in the business of buying and selling precious metals, stones and jewellery”.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Let me just quote from the bill. The bill deals with “departments and agents of Her Majesty...that sell...precious metals”, and your attempt is to broaden it to include other persons clearly outside of that mandate, so the amendment is out of order because it is outside the scope of the bill.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not convinced, but I will have to respect your decision on that.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Thank you, sir.

(Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 6)

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Clause 6 has amendments, and each of our members has these in front of them.

Amendment G-1 is a government amendment. I need a mover for this amendment.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

I so move.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

The amendment is that Bill C-25, in clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 3 with the following:

under section 8 of the Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on the Suppression of Terrorism shall also make a

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 7 agreed to on division)

(On clause 8)

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

We now have a series of amendments, and in this particular instance we have a line conflict, with two amendments dealing with the same lines in the bill: Liberal amendment L-2 and government amendment G-2. If G-2 is adopted, L-2 cannot be proceeded with. In the interests of fairness, what I propose to do is to allow discussion on both amendments simultaneously, because to allow discussion on G-2 would preclude a discussion on L-2. You have those amendments in front of you now.

Monsieur Paquette, Monsieur St-Cyr.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but where are we?

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Amendments G-2 and L-2 deal with the same lines in the bill. Under our rules we can only amend the lines once. If we proceed with a discussion on G-2, that will preclude a discussion on Liberal amendment 2; therefore, I am inviting discussion on the two amendments simultaneously.

I'll invite the government person to speak to G-2, if they wish.

But first, welcome to our guests who have arrived.