We'll withdraw it, Chair.
Evidence of meeting #9 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #9 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Chair, I'll have one more go at it.
Just so people know what the language says, in this particular clause, it applies to co-operatives, but the language for this, whether it's a co-op, a condo or a home, is the same.
We're talking about striking out the paragraph that says “the agreement of purchase and sale referred to in paragraph (2)(c) is entered into after May 26, 2025 and before 2031,” and changing lines 4 and 5 on page 7 to “ownership of the share is transferred to the particular individual after May 26, 2025 and before 2031, and”.
Again, it is about the closing date. The only difference about the closing date is to apply the GST exemption at the time of closing as opposed to at the time of the signing of the agreement. I'm asking for this particular amendment to apply to co-ops.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
My consideration of this amendment as inadmissible stands and continues for the reasons I outlined previously.
Monsieur Garon, go ahead on BQ-4.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As you know, different types of housing are treated under different sections, but the argument remains the same. I therefore consider that I have repeated my previous remarks. I also reiterate my opposition to Mr. Turnbull. We will see what happens next.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
I consider this amendment out of order for the reasons I mentioned earlier. It requires a royal recommendation.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
With all due respect, Madam Chair, I'd like to challenge your ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Okay.
The vote will be on sustaining the chair's ruling.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 4; yeas 5)
Mr. Hallan.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary East, AB
Chair, I'm just wondering whether, for all the Bloc amendments, since we have the same outcome on each one, there's a buy-in from everyone that we could pass it on division. We have the same outcome on each one, so maybe it will help save some time, if that works for everyone.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I don't particularly have a problem with that, as long as the chair's ruling that it's inadmissible is documented on each one. If you're overruling the chair, if that's how everyone is going to vote, then we could do the whole thing as a package and get it over with.
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I move that amendments BQ‑5, BQ‑6 and BQ‑7 be considered moved, debated and then ruled out of order by the chair, that this ruling by the chair be considered overturned by the committee and that the amendments be considered adopted on division.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I would add amendments BQ‑8, BQ‑9 and BQ‑10, to save even more time.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
We don't want to get too confused, but how about I propose that each time we get to a Bloc amendment, it is deemed inadmissible by the chair; the ruling of the chair is challenged and overturned, and then the amendment is passed on division? We will go through each time, just to make sure that we don't mess anything up, unless you don't want to challenge it.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Your compromise proposal seems perfectly acceptable to me, given the time we have and the use of public funds.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
That's perfect.
We will consider that amendment BQ-4 was deemed inadmissible by the chair. The ruling was challenged; the committee overturned the chair's ruling, and the amendment passed on division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 7)
We have amendment CPC-6.
Mr. Hallan.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Amendment BQ-5 is deemed moved, ruled inadmissible by the chair, the ruling challenged and overturned, and the amendment passed on division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 8)
Amendment BQ-6 is deemed moved, ruled inadmissible by the chair, the ruling challenged and overturned, and the amendment passed on division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 9)
Amendment BQ-7 is deemed moved, ruled inadmissible by the chair, the ruling challenged and overturned, and the amendment passed on division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 10)
Amendment BQ-7.1 is deemed moved, ruled inadmissible by the chair, the ruling challenged and overturned, and the amendment passed on division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'm sorry, Ms. Kwan, but NDP-6 cannot be moved because there is a line conflict with BQ-7.1. Amendment BQ-7.1 carried, so, unfortunately, you can't move that amendment.
The same is true for CPC-7. It also cannot be moved, so I will not give you the chance to withdraw it this time. My apologies.
Mr. Kelly has a point of order.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
Just quickly on clause 10, I guess I would ask for consent to say that this one is adopted on division.