Evidence of meeting #36 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At this breakneck speed, I was unaware that our guest panellists have not had the clause-by-clause examination of the impacts of each of the amendments on the legislation. I think this just compounds the very surreal atmosphere we have here.
We've imposed a 60-second time limit on the consideration of any amendments of any clauses; then a few seconds to vote hurriedly; and we can't go to our guests to request an examination, because they haven't necessarily analyzed all the amendments.
It's very clear that there are serious problems with this bill. There are serious issues that have to be resolved, and we can't do it in this kind of environment. So I would implore committee members to be responsible and look to the type of due diligence that we need to have, rather than ramming through these clauses one after the other without any forethought as to the implications.
Mr. Chair, I think it's important for committee members to realize that the committee has already made decisions that are going to have very negative impacts on—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
Is there anybody else on clause 50?
We'll go to the vote.
(Clause 50 agreed to: yeas 9, nays 1)
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'd like to move, Mr. Chair, that the committee suspend its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-24 until the full impact of the amendments has been assessed by the ministry.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Of course that is out of order, Mr. Julian. We have passed a motion that says we will deal with this today, before midnight.
We will continue with NDP-36.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I challenge your ruling on this.
This is a motion that is very much in order.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The vote is that the ruling of the chair be sustained.
(Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 10; nays 1)
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
November 7th, 2006 / 4:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move amendment NDP-36.
In the current legislation, a person who has been assessed and objects to the assessment has only 90 days after the date of the notice of motion of assessment to file a notice of objection with the minister.
Now, certainly that's more than the 60 seconds that the government is giving for debate on clause-by-clause here, or the few scant seconds that they're providing in terms of due diligence, but 90 days is not enough time to necessarily appeal assessments. For some of these softwood companies, they already have an onerous administrative burden.
In this amendment, what we are suggesting is that it be 150 days, a longer period of time for these companies, so that they actually have the capacity to appeal the assessment in the midst of all of the other administrative charges that are brought onto them by Bill C-24.
A hundred and fifty days is a reasonable period, and a hundred and fifty days should be—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
Is there anyone else on NDP-36, on page 57 of the amendment booklet?
We'll go to the question on NDP-36.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:50 p.m.
NDP
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a motion. It is that this committee consider together amendments on pages 60 to 104, because all of these amendments address provisions that are standard within existing tax legislation.
That is my motion. I have it in both French and English for everyone around the table. We can pass that.
I will speak to it a little bit. Changes that these amendments are suggesting would have significant impact on administration. The provisions that are suggested are directly parallel to similar provisions that appear in other tax statutes administered by the Canada Revenue Agency. In some cases, such provisions have appeared in one or more of the statutes for decades.
The Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Finance have worked very hard to ensure that these types of provisions remain consistent in all federal tax statutes where possible. Changes to standard provisions take away consistency in law, and it will make it very confusing for the taxpayer. CRA officials have provided this committee with a table that I remind all honourable members illustrates the relationship between existing legislation and the amendments referred to in my motion.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Ms. Guergis, this motion is not in order. You cannot group amendments dealing with several clauses and dispense with them at one time unless there is unanimous consent.
You can ask for unanimous consent; I'm sure you will receive that, Ms. Guergis.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
This is exactly the same motion that we all supported when we grouped the others together as well, Mr. Chair. We've done it twice with respect to the date change, and we've also done it with others that had no amendments to them, so it has been done already. Can we not remain consistent, if we've done it already twice?
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Would it not be preferable to complete clause 54, before considering the Parliamentary Secretary's motion? We have another amendment to withdraw.