I would like a recorded vote, please.
Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clause 303 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 304 carry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clause 304 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 305 carry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clause 305 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 306 carry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clause 306 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 307)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, we shall move to clause 307. We have three amendments: LIB-225, LIB-226, and LIB-227.
Your chair has a ruling.
Bill C-45 amends the Employment Insurance Act to continue the hiring credit for small business for 2012. This amendment, LIB-225, proposes to increase the threshold for the eligibility criteria so that more businesses would qualify for the refund. Additionally, consequential amendments—LIB-226 and LIB-227—would increase the size of those refunds, while still respecting the overall $1,000 limit.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at pages 767 and 768:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment would significantly change the mechanisms of this refund, which would alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule this amendment, LIB-225, inadmissible. Amendments LIB-226 and LIB-227 are also, in the opinion of the chair, consequential to this amendment and, therefore, also inadmissible.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, would you care to share that opinion in writing with the members of the committee, please?
November 23rd, 2012 / 6:05 a.m.
Liberal
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I understand that, but either that or I'll ask you to read it again, because I want to see the link between amendment LIB-225 and the others. Do you have to negate one to get to the others, or are you just ruling them out of order entirely?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Amendments LIB-226 and LIB-227 are consequential to amendment LIB-225. As you know, a ruling on an amendment—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Sorry, can I deal with this?
You can challenge the chair on my ruling, but—
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
No, before challenging, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to understand, because in our view, amendment LIB-225 is separate from the other two. The other two are linked, and we accept that, but we don't believe that amendments LIB-226 and LIB-227 are linked to amendment LIB-225.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
In the opinion of the chair, amendments LIB-226 and LIB-227 are consequential to amendment LIB-225. That's why I've made this ruling.
We have a difference of opinion on the matter. You can challenge the chair if you wish.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Yes. I don't mean all 27 clerks who have been working over the past few hours.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I understand that, but it could be two or three, I presume.
Conservative
