Evidence of meeting #59 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
This brings us to Lib-1, the Liberal amendment on page 4.
I will offer the floor to Mr. Owen.
Now, under these circumstances, do you feel you want to withdraw that amendment?
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I'd like to get some comment from the officials, because we've heard from Elections Canada officials as to the difference between commercial value and fair market value as it might be applied to a political loan situation.
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
The choice of the fair market rate was deliberate, because the drafters informed us that an interest rate does not have a value per se, so that's why the bill that was introduced didn't refer to commercial value.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
(Amendment withdrawn)
Colleagues, we now go to CPC-2 on page 5. I will tell you that there is a line conflict with both Lib-2 and Lib-3. You might want to look at all of those at the same time. If CPC-2 is adopted, then Lib-2 and Lib-3 cannot be proceeded with, so please have a look at all of those at the same time.
I'm going to ask Mr. Preston to introduce CPC-2.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
This is the piece that finishes what we started under CPC-1. It simply brings forward the ability, once a loan is paid off, to re-establish your contribution limit in a given year.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you.
Are there any comments or debate on that?
Mr. Owen, go ahead, please.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
We are, I think, trying to achieve the same result. We may get some opinion from our experts as to which wording might be preferable, but I think the intent of our two amendments is the same.
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
I'm assuming Mr. Owen is talking to Lib-3. Amendment CPC-2 also allows the amount of a guarantee or suretyship to be reclaimed, I guess, if it's paid back. The Liberal amendment does not do that.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I just want clarification from our experts. What's the difference between a guarantee and a suretyship?
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
It's official government policy to have bijural drafting in law, so the French and English versions both have to represent the common law and the civil law concepts. In the case of the English version, “guarantee” does not have the same meaning in the civil law, so that's why “suretyship” is needed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Are we ready for the question?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
As a result of that, colleagues, amendments Lib-2 and Lib-3 on pages 7 and 8 respectively are automatically defeated.
We will deal now, colleagues, with amendment Lib-4 on page 9 of your booklet. There is no conflict with any other amendments on this.
I would ask Mr. Owen if he would introduce and move this amendment.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you.
I think Mr. Chénier's explanation for the use of suretyship plus guarantee brings new information to us, which is very helpful. Certainly in drafting this amendment we had been following the advice of Elections Canada. Looking at the English, “surety” and “guarantee” are synonymous, but that's not so, obviously, in the French. Therefore, in light of the information given to us by the government on Friday, I think this should be withdrawn.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Technically it hasn't been moved by Mr. Owen, so it doesn't need to be withdrawn, but I see unanimous consent to withdraw it.
Colleagues, amendment NDP-3 is on page 10, and I am going to ask Mr. Dewar to help the committee with this. It is my opinion and the opinion of our legislative people that amendment NDP-3 may also apply to amendments NDP-5, NDP-8, NDP-9, NDP-10, NDP-12, NDP-13, NDP-14.
Mr. Dewar is shaking his head.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Yes. Colleagues, I apologize for going so fast.
Amendment NDP-3 on page 10 may have some consequential issues and may also apply to amendments NDP-5, NDP-8, NDP-9, NDP-10, NDP-12, NDP-13, and NDP-14, but not amendment NDP-11. I do not have NDP-11 down here. It seems to be significantly different.
Colleagues, if you notice, coming up next is amendment NDP-3. NDP-4 is not relevant, but NDP-5 is also coming up. We will now deal with amendment NDP-3 and we'll muddle our way through how this applies to the other ones.
I'm going to ask Mr. Dewar to introduce amendment NDP-3 on page 10.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Actually, I will move that, Chair, and perhaps turn to our panel. I'll explain the reason for it. But there is a cascading effect here, and maybe we could hear from our panel on the net effect the amendments would have on the bill.
Essentially this just changes the timelines from what was in the bill, 18 months, to three years, and that was simply to give people more opportunity to deal with the financial aspects of the bill. We have heard testimony, I'm told, from people who were asking for this kind of extension. I don't think it takes away from the important intent of this bill and the importance of having limits on loans and on any loopholes within loans.
That is the intent of these amendments. Maybe we can go to the panel on this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Would anyone from the panel want to comment on that? Mr. McDougall or Mr. Chénier.
