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.
Director, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I wouldn't have thought that that would have caused them to fall under the SIFT rules.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
There is no further discussion?
The amendment before you is L-2. All in favour?
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
On G-1, page 3, there's a line conflict with L-3. If G-1 is adopted, L-3 cannot be proceeded with. We will discuss G-1 first, obviously.
Conservative
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
This is a simple technical amendment, as the members can see, Mr. Chairman. It proposes simply, in short, that the definition of REIT include any share or interest in which a REIT trust may be involved to make sure that all the operations of the REIT are caught by the provisions. So it's a clarification, basically, on what the scope is for a REIT operation.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
We move to Liberal amendment L-13.
Mr. McCallum or Mr. McKay.
John, which John do we want?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
We can withdraw L-18 if L-13 doesn't go. Let's do it that way.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Okay.
Obviously, as Liberals, our preference goes to our first choice, which is the solution put forward in the committee's report. However, this committee has already voted against our proposal. The committee's report included two proposals to chose from: one from the Liberals and one from the Bloc québécois. Given that the Liberals' proposal has just been defeated, we suggest that the Bloc's proposal be adopted.
As I explained earlier, the Liberals' idea was to bring down the tax from 31% to 10%, but for non-Canadians only. According to experts, this would have allowed to recover two thirds of the funds that were lost. As mentioned in the press release from the Bloc québécois, the transition period would be extended to ten years instead of four. In our opinion, it is not the best solution, but it is better than the status quo.
In LIB-13, we are putting forward the Bloc québécois solution. It is simple and does not change anything, except for the transition period which is 10 years instead of four.This ten-year period would give businesses more time to adjust and it would increase the odds that a government may come up with something better.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chairman, what I heard in our discussions surrounding this whole issue, and we did have hearings on it, was that the Bloc members on the committee at the time wanted to explore the possibility of extending the transition period and they wanted to hear some evidence about that. But I don't think they had any particular commitment to one number or another at that time; they simply wanted to get more evidence--as we all did. So I don't think it's really fair to put a position in the mouth of any other party who really wasn't there.
I just wanted to clarify that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Heaven forbid that that would ever happen.
Is there any further commentary?
Monsieur Crête.
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Let's not forget that when we examined the report, the bill had not been submitted to us. We wanted to find the best possible solution. However, in the present context, what we really hope for is speedy passage of the bill so that the budget can be implemented as soon as possible.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
We have a recorded vote on amendment L-13.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
The amendment is defeated.
Now to amendment L-14. Is that withdrawn?
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
No, it's not withdrawn. This is the last amendment I have, L-14. Is that what you're calling for now?
Conservative
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Yes. L-18 is withdrawn, since L-13 is defeated.
This amendment deals with the authority of Parliament to raise a new tax. The member from Scarborough—Rouge River brought this issue to the Speaker's attention some weeks ago, through a point of order.
As the bill is currently phrased, the Department of Finance has the ability to change any of the new rules from time to time through a simple press release. We, as parliamentarians, must admit that this is not a good precedent to set, particularly in the realm of taxation, which is a power that belongs to the House of Commons.
The amendment I'm proposing here would ensure that any such changes must be substantially in accordance with the original guidelines issued by the Department of Finance and they can only be done by regulation. The essence of the amendment is to ensure government by regulation and legislation, not by a press release.
Another way of expressing this point is that I believe it raises the accountability level of the law. We believe that government by press release does not display sufficient accountability.
