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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Okay
All in favour of the chair's ruling, so indicate.
[Ruling of the chair sustained]
The chair's ruling is upheld. Now we'll move on.
Mr. McCallum, we have your first amendment and the others, apart from this one. Would you like to speak to that cluster, as you wished earlier?
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
No. In the interests of time, I think we've discussed this around this table enough. Basically our proposal is for a 10% tax, refundable to all Canadian residents, to replace the 31.5% tax.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
All right.
I'll need unanimous consent to treat the block of amendments that Mr. McCallum has here as we discussed earlier. We will vote on the block of amendments, 2972643, 2975078, and 2975140.
(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
A recorded vote has been requested by Mr. Pacetti on clause 12.
(Clause 12 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 13)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
I have amendment L-2, reference 2972689.
Who would like to speak to that?
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. The government has a technical amendment on the same clause; it may satisfy some of the concerns raised in the Liberal amendment. I just raise that in case you might want to deal with the government amendment first.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
This is a purely technical amendment that doesn't question the spirit or intention of the law at all. The amendment is that clause 13 be amended by deleting lines 26 to 32 on page 16.
This amendment removes the definition of “public market”. At a later point in the bill these words will be removed in order to ensure that the bill meets its policy objectives. Currently there is great concern that the wording will capture private partnerships involving such things as law firms. I believe that would be an unfortunate unintended consequence of this bill.
So this is a positive, spirited move to improve the bill.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I direct an inquiry to the officials.
This was raised by Mr. Morand yesterday, and it has been raised by others. It may be that ordinary partnerships are in fact caught by the provisions here.
I want to ask the officials the real question, if taking amendment G-1 together with the Liberal amendment—which essentially just deletes the non-portfolio piece—addresses the issues raised, particularly by Mr. Morand in yesterday's testimony, which I assume you've read.
