Evidence of meeting #40 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We'll have some discussion on that; essentially it's a sunset clause, or....
Mr. Laforest.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a very hard time supporting amendment NDP-11, as moved by Mr. Julian, for a very specific reason. If amendment NDP-10 had been adopted, it would have been possible. This is, to some extent, a prerequisite, once various experts have been consulted and an assessment has been completed for each house. To my mind, amendment NDP-11 would have been more relevant with that kind of follow-up.
Unfortunately, we will not be supporting amendment NDP-11 because, in my view, it is more closely related to amendment NDP-10, which was defeated.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Is there any further discussion on NDP-11?
Those in favour of NDP-11, the amendment that would introduce new clause 62.1?
(Amendment negatived)
4:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
There you go. All right--satisfied, Mr. Julian.
(On clause 63--Order in council)
We have a final amendment, and this would be BQ-1.
Mr. Laforest.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, as Mr. Julian mentioned earlier, the amendment we are proposing is along the same lines as the motion he put forward.
It is very clear to us that the exchange of tax information should be compliant with the OECD agreement or model agreement. It is crucial that Panama and Canada sign such an agreement in order to remove a rather large obstacle, stemming from the fact that we are signing a free-trade agreement without first having a tax information exchange agreement, which would prevent a loss of tax revenue for Canada. That is a basic requirement, ensuring justice and fairness for all taxpayers.
That is why we are moving this amendment, in the hope that there is still time, a few moments, to consider this whole issue and how important it is for all taxpayers in Quebec and Canada.
December 13th, 2010 / 4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you.
Mr. Julian, if you would, just prior to any further debate on it, I think it's important to mention that we've asked for a ruling on this proposed amendment. I will simply read it out with regard to Bill C-46:
Bill C-46 implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Panama and done at Ottawa on May 13 and 14, 2010. The amendment attempts to insert conditions upon the coming into force of some of the provisions of the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd Edition) states on page 769: “An amendment intended to alter the coming into force clause of a bill, making it conditional, is out of order since it exceeds the scope of the bill and attempts to introduce a new question into it.” In the opinion of the Chair, the introduction of these conditions is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-46 and is therefore inadmissible.
So that would be the ruling of the chair. Obviously, we can have debate on that, but I think we're going to rule the amendment out of order.
Mr. Julian, do you want to comment, or overrule the chair?
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Actually, I was going to do that, Mr. Chair.
I'll challenge your ruling on the following basis. What this simply does is allow, in the same way that most legislation does, certain conditions to be satisfied before implementation. As a result of that, it would seem to me this is perfectly in order.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Paul Cardegna
There's been a challenge of the decision by the chair. The question before the committee is as follows: shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
And do we want a recorded division?
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Absolutely.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8; nays 3)
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Bloc amendment BQ-1 is therefore ruled out of order and inadmissible.
We'll proceed with the vote on clause 63.
(Clause 63 agreed to on division)
Shall schedule 1 carry?
4:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.