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.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We do have a Bloc amendment, and I will get to that.
There was a motion moved.
Yes, go ahead, Mr. Julian.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
As a point of order, that clearly is not in order. The government keeps seeking to not do its due diligence. We're moving along at a very fast clip--too fast, to my taste--but this is completely needless, and it is obviously out of order.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, if you will think back to when this happened earlier, there was no objection to it, and that is why it was allowed to happen. I don't think I've heard an objection here.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
You heard objection. It was a point of order, and I said it was out of order. That I think is what would constitute an objection in most courts of law.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, we can't proceed with this.
Let's just continue.
It is not supposed to happen. Things shouldn't be grouped like this unless there is unanimous consent or no objection. There has been an objection expressed, so we will go ahead with the Bloc amendment on clause 54. It is amendment BQ-4 on page 58 of the--
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Mr. Chair, can we clarify on that previous motion? It's the same substance that we had before, so I don't understand what the difference is.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Cannan, as I explained earlier, there was no objection expressed, and there has been an objection clearly expressed on this occasion.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
We haven't got any cooperation from Mr. Julian in the whole process. Nothing's changed.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Cannan, I've explained why this has happened.
Yes, go ahead, Mr. Menzies.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
The last time there was an objection, and we voted on it. I think we've heard all sorts of ranting from Mr. Julian about how draconian this is, but we listened to Mr. Julian filibuster for four and a half hours and waste everyone's time, and now he's concerned that we're ramming this through.
This is, I would suggest, a very friendly way of moving this agenda forward, and I see no reason you couldn't accept it. With the similarity to the former motion, there should be no reason we couldn't accept it, Mr. Chair.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes, Mr. Menzies, and I've explained that.
Could we go to the Bloc amendment?
5 p.m.
Bloc
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Then we will go to clause 54.
(On clause 54--Person leaving Canada or defaulting)
5 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
That's too bad.
It's too bad the Bloc withdrew its amendment because the fact is it added an important element to this Bill. It was an improvement. So, I am really sorry that the Bloc decided to withdraw something that would actually have allowed us to substantially improve this clause.
In spite of that, Mr. Chairman, we still have huge and excessive penalties under clause 54 for companies that object to the government's assessments. The fact is that the government is saying here that companies will pay that assessment. A person has a short 90 days to register an objection to the assessment. Following that, there is a period of time, which is not necessarily limited, for the Minister to reply.
In the meantime, we also know that there is all this interest charged under this utterly dictatorial piece of legislation. So, I would have liked to see the Bloc pursue Mr. Cardin's motion. It would have represented an important addition to clause 54, something that might have made all the difference...
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Go ahead with your point of order, Mr. LeBlanc.
Mr. Julian, your time is up as well.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
I think Mr. Julian is to be commended for his attempt to move a motion that Mr. Paquette has just withdrawn. If Mr. Julian wanted to move Mr. Paquette's amendment, he had plenty of time to table the same amendment himself.
Mr. Chairman, you actually allowed Mr. Julian to speak for quite a long time, going well beyond the allotted speaking time, on an amendment that he did not himself move and that Mr. Paquette has withdrawn.
I suggest that we put clause 54 to a vote so that we can hear Mr. Julian speak to his next amendment, which is amendment 37. I'm sure it will be very interesting.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Good point, Mr. LeBlanc. Mr. Julian was actually speaking to clause 54.
Is there anybody else on clause 54?
We'll go to the vote on clause 54.
(Clause 54 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 2)
(On clause 55—Extension of time by Minister)
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Government amendment number 6, on page 59 of the booklet.
Who would like to move G-6?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I so move.
Of course, we support this amendment, which is a technical correction. It corrects the meaning in the French language to authorize the minister to accept an application from a person who wishes to file a notice of objection but who has not done so within the prescribed time period.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would like to suggest a sub-amendment to the amendment moved by the government. It would read as follows: “Que le ministre reçoit la demande”.
Given that this is in order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to it. You will be able to confirm that it is in order.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We have a subamendment by Mr. Julian.
Do you want to speak to that subamendment?
November 7th, 2006 / 5:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would like to quote from Le Petit Robert, the French language dictionary which is the authoritative reference where the French language is concerned. In fact, it was my first French dictionary when I arrived in Chicoutimi.
The definition it gives for the verb “recevoir” is as follows:
Se voir adresser (qqch). 1. Être mis en possession de (qqch.) par un envoi, un don, un paiement, [...] Recevoir une lettre, un colis, un catalogue. J'ai reçu une lettre de mes parents.
For example:
Recevoir un cadeau, des étrennes. L'aumône avilit « celui qui la reçoit et celui qui la fait ». Recevoir de l'argent. [...] Recevoir une somme, un salaire, une gratification.
That is how the verb “recevoir” is defined in the Petit Robert.
Now, Mr. Chairman, coming back to this clause on page 39 of Bill C-24, the current wording in the French version is: “Le ministre peut faire droit à la demande”, which would be replaced by: “Le ministre peut recevoir la demande”. Mr. Chairman, rather than saying that, my suggestion is to say: “Le ministre reçoit la demande”. That is my opinion, and I would certainly...
