Finance Committee on Feb. 27th, 2008

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

—if you had the time before 4:30?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes, and we're going to do that now.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to put a motion on the floor that the committee not proceed with this bill.

While I respect the motives by the mover of the bill, I don't think this bill would provide the desired results. Secondly, I think it's potentially discriminatory for graduates who happen to come from larger centres and who choose to stay in those larger centres.

I'd like to put a motion on the floor that the committee defeat this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay. We will entertain that motion at this time. With that, we will ask for a vote on the motion.

Is there debate on that motion, first of all?

Oui?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I moved a motion before Mr. Del Mastro. Are we going to vote on the motion concerning the clause-by-clause consideration?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Well, they're one and the same, but the motion is.... We wouldn't need to go to clause-by-clause, if his motion passes. If his motion is defeated, then we'd go to clause-by-clause, so it's the same difference.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I moved mine before he did; I hope we vote on mine first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

The issue is this. You presented a motion. I didn't accept it, because I wanted to go on with the remainder of the debate. Now we're in a situation where we're entertaining a motion to defeat the bill, which in essence would be the same thing.

So I'm in a situation whereby, if I haven't received it, it isn't official. I am receiving this motion, and we will vote on the motion. If it's defeated, then we'll go to clause-by-clause.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's the same thing at all. First of all, when you asked me earlier if I was moving a motion, I said I was. Then, you asked me if I had a problem with the two people still on the list speaking. I said no, I didn't. My motion is still on the table and has to be voted on before Mr. Del Mastro's. His motion is completely the opposite of mine.

I would like to appeal your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I'd ask that we vote on the motion that I moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Wallace has a point of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Whatever you decide, whichever motion you play forward, if Mr. Laforest's motion comes first I will be voting to defeat it because I don't want to go line by line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We're splitting hairs, really. If we go to clause-by-clause and kill the clause, that's the same thing Mr. Del Mastro wants. If we go with just Mr. Del Mastro's bill and it is passed, it's the same thing. So let's go with the original, clause-by-clause. I'll ask Mr. Del Mastro to allow Mr. Laforest's motion and we'll move forward. Fair enough?

We will now move to clause-by-clause. We have two amendments, and we'll start with BQ-1, number 3297738. We need somebody to move that amendment.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I move it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Do you want to speak to the amendment?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

The purpose of the amendment is to change the application year to 2008.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

You've introduced the amendment and I'm allowing you to speak to it if you like. If not, we'll vote on it.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I'm tabling deals with clause 1 of the bill and would amend paragraph 118.71(1)(a). The purpose is to replace "2007" with "2008".

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I understand.

(Amendment negatived)

Next is BQ-2, number 3302909. Monsieur Laforest is moving it.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Yes, I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Do you want to speak to it? Go ahead.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

The purpose of the second amendment, in reference to the initial bill, is to strike, in the first part, the words "attributable to the individual's base period". Mr. Wallace referred to this earlier. So, the purpose of the second amendment is to strike those words in paragraph 118.71(2)(a).

Then, paragraph 118.71(2)(b) would be completely scratched and replaced by "$3,000". So, it would read as follows: "(2) [...] computing the tax payable under this part by an individual [...] an amount equal to the lesser of: (a) [...] 40% of the aggregate of all amounts [...]" or "(b) $3,000".

Then, insert paragraph (c), which stipulates that the maximum amount a young, former, or new graduate, regardless of his or her age, may receive from the federal government is $8,000.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Is everyone clear on the amendment?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 1 negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Shall the bill carry?