Now we are moving to NDP 3.1.
Evidence of meeting #53 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #53 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Here we are. What I'm proposing, as I mentioned earlier, is that we give some flexibility on the date of the coming into force, particularly on the tax on subject aircraft. This is so that we have time to do the work that Mr. Chambers has forecast in his motion and so the government has more time to work with the industry to see if some of the concerns that have been raised can be addressed.
This is, as I say, part of a package with Mr. Chambers's motion to get more information and to provide the flexibility that's needed in order to bring in any fixes if it's found that there is a good way to address industry concerns.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.
I appreciate the constructive suggestion by my colleague in the NDP. I speak only for myself, not on behalf of the other members, of course, but I would be pleased to support that motion.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Okay. Thank you.
Members, I'm going to give my ruling.
Bill C-19 enacts the select luxury items tax act. Amendment NDP-3.1 aims to modify the date of coming into force on subject aircraft by changing it from September 1, 2022 to “a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council”.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
An amendment is...inadmissible if it exceeds the scope of the ways and means motion on which a bill is based, or if it imposes a new charge on the people that is not preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion....
In the opinion of the chair, changing the date of the coming into force could oblige certain entities to bear an additional charge. Therefore, I declare this amendment inadmissible.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
12:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained? If you are in agreement, you vote yes; if you are against the decision of the chair, you vote no.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Even though none of the committee members supported your ruling, we really appreciate the job you're doing.
Keep up the great work.
12:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I might distinguish myself yet again in this regard, Mr. Chair.
As a meta-process, because I know it's not kosher to deliberate on challenges to the chair or your rulings, I would suggest that it would be helpful for members, if you are unsure of the admissibility of something, that you right off the bat say, “I would like us to have a discussion about the admissibility,” or, if you've already come to a conclusion, it would be helpful just to say, “I've come to the conclusion of inadmissibility,” and then we'll make our decisions. The reason, Mr. Chair, is that we all want to see substantial changes, but it does make for a better process, I think, if we know a bit more head-on where you may or may not be going, so we can govern ourselves accordingly.
Don't take it as a criticism, but more as a suggestion for future iterations, because I think it is helpful if, before we start debating the substance, we know we're in procedurally smooth waters.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Albas, although sometimes, as you know, we receive this right on the minute, and that's how it arrived before me.
Right now, shall amendment NDP-3.1 carry?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, we are still on clause 135. We have Conservative amendment CPC-8 before us.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
I will anticipate the chair's ruling here based on the previous one, so I'll keep it short other than to say that there was considerable discussion and confusion about the coming into force date, at least in the boating industry, and when the luxury tax would apply. I understand that there were some discussions between the industry and the government on a date of January 1, 2022 or December 31, 2021. This would move that date to when it comes into force.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment defeated: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])