This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #153 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was income.

Topics

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

It is my duty to interrupt proceedings now to put the question now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

The member for Joliette on a point of order.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, as the bells started sounding, the official opposition asked that the vote on Motion No. 92 be deferred, and the Chair did not recognize our request at that point.

I would submit, with all due respect, to your attention, Standing Order 73(1)( d ), which provides in French:

-after not more than 180 minutes of debate, the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and the question shall be put and decided without further debate.

In our opinion, putting the question does not mean we cannot defer the vote. Standing Order 45(5)( a )(ii) provides:

(ii) During the sounding of the bells, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may ask the Speaker to defer the division.

This is what we did. Nothing in this Standing Order either indicates that we cannot ask to have the vote deferred to another

time. The French text is clear, and I would ask you to recognize the request of the official opposition, please.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It appears the whip of the Official Opposition is correct in his summary.

I bring to the attention of the Chair that there are other times, for example in Private Members' Business, where a set amount of time is allocated for debate, at which time the question is put and is often deferred. I think in this case the whip of the Official Opposition is correct.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would submit respectfully that the standing orders are quite clear:

After not more than 180 minutes of debate the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and the question shall be put and decided without further debate.

In fact, debate was concluded after 180 minutes, the vote was scheduled, the division bells were rung for 15 minutes ago. We are now ready to vote.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:45 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the Chair's ruling earlier this morning on 73(1) where it was pointed out by the government whip that there was no restriction in Standing Order 73(1) and therefore it applies to bills that had a ways and means motion preceding it because there was nothing in 73(1) that contained that restriction.

I draw your attention to Standing Order 45, content contains no restriction. Therefore I humbly suggest you see that his point of order is in order.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

I thank members of both sides of this House for their arguments on this point. I have looked at Standing Order 76, cited by the hon. member for Joliette, and considered the wording. Furthermore, I looked at the wording of Standing Order 45 to make a comparison, and I do not believe the

It is provided in Standing Order 45(3) that:

When, under the provisions of any Standing Order or other Order of the House, the Speaker has interrupted any proceeding for the purpose of putting forthwith the question on any business then before the House, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes.

I interrupted the proceedings at the conclusion of 180 minutes.

-in order to put the question immediately on a matter under discussion in the House, the division bells must have rung for fifteen minutes at most.

Having done so, I refer the hon. member for Joliette and the Reform Party whip to Standing Order 45(5)(a)(i):

Except as provided in sections (3) and (6) of this Standing Order-

In other words, where section (3) applies there is no right to defer under Standing Order 45(5). Standing Order 45(5) applies to 30 minute bells, not 15 minute bells. On any 15 minute bell the only hope for deferral lies under Standing Order 45(7).

I urge hon. members to have regard to that fact. I did not permit the deferral of the division because I believed it was out of order and I so ruled.

We will now proceed with the question.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996Routine Proceedings

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Motion agreed to, and bill referred to a committee.)

On the Order: Government Orders:

April 9, 1997-The Minister of Finance-Second reading and referrence to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-93, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 1997.

Budget Implementation Act, 1997Routine Proceedings

1:55 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

moved that Bill C-93, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 1997, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Budget Implementation Act, 1997Routine Proceedings

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be a disposition either to suspend the House or to see the clock as being two o'clock and we could go to Statements by Members in order for the member to have his full ten minutes following question period.

Budget Implementation Act, 1997Routine Proceedings

1:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

Is that agreed?

Budget Implementation Act, 1997Routine Proceedings

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

PotashStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Bernie Collins Liberal Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, 1996 marked the third consecutive outstanding year for the Saskatchewan potash industry, the largest producer and exporter of potash in the world.

The industry's solid performance in 1996 was the result of strong sales to the United States, Brazil, western Europe and Indonesia. These sales, combined with strong potash prices, sustained gross revenue to the Saskatchewan industry at the second highest level on record.

Most important, this success translates into high quality, well paying jobs. The potash industry employs 3,000 people in Saskatchewan and has an annual capital spending of $60 million.

In order to build on this success and to spur growth in the mining industry as a whole, I call on all members to support the natural resources minister in her efforts to remove regulatory constraints within federal jurisdiction which hinder mining investment in Canada.

AsbestosStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge in this House the courage and determination of the four miners from Asbestos who ran in the Paris marathon last weekend.

In so doing, although they were ignored by the French press, they wanted to create awareness about how safe asbestos really is when used properly. These four miners have demonstrated that the physical ability of workers is in no way affected by exposure to chrysotile asbestos fibres, partly because of the very high health standards in the industry.

I salute their action and encourage any such activity aimed at convincing the French people that this matter was blown out of proportion.

My colleague from Richmond-Wolfe joins me in congratulating Guy Guérette, Eudore Lemay, Michel Champagne and Pierre Laliberté, our four marathon runners and chrysotile asbestos miners.

NaftaStatements By Members

April 10th, 1997 / 1:55 p.m.

Reform

Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister arrived in Washington a few days ago he said he had no serious issues to discuss. I beg to differ.

I recall that prior to the last election there was one item that seemed extremely important to him. It is even included on page 24 of the red book: "A Liberal government will renegotiate the NAFTA to obtain a subsidies code, an anti-dumping code and a more effective dispute resolution mechanism". There was even talk about abrogating the agreement if satisfactory changes could not be negotiated.

What has happened to that promise? Is it no longer important? I suppose we can add it to the heap of other Liberal broken promises like dumping the GST, getting to the bottom of the Somalia affair and eliminating interprovincial trade barriers.

It is indeed a cynical government that makes promises that it knows it cannot keep.

RailwaysStatements By Members

2 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are concerned about the fact that U.S. based heavy construction equipment and workers have crossed the border to perform routine train derailment wrecking services.

Any justification for such actions based on the claim that such equipment and expertise are unavailable in Canada is just plain false. Canadian crews do this kind of work all the time and they do it well. They could have done the work recently performed in Winnipeg and in Bala, Ontario. There was no emergency and no need to import such services. Canadian crews and Canadian equipment were available.

I join with CAW local 101 of Winnipeg in calling on the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to conduct a full investigation into CP Rail's actions. The least this Liberal government could do is make sure Canadian workers do not lose their jobs to Americans because CP Rail is allowed to do whatever it likes.

Spring SprintStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—Woodbine, ON

Mr. Speaker, spring is in the air. One of the ways we know that spring has arrived is that the 10th annual Beaches Spring Sprint was held this past weekend in my Toronto riding. What better way to shake off the winter blues and enjoy some fresh air and exercise than a run along the shores of Lake Ontario?

A record 830 participants ran the five kilometre race along the boardwalk to raise $6,000 for the Beaches Recreation Centre which is celebrating its 25th anniversary. The runners were assisted by 130 volunteers who demonstrated good community spirit in organizing the race. They made sure everything went along smoothly.

I congratulate the runners and the volunteers on a job well done. The money raised will go to maintain various programs at the Beaches Recreation Centre and to purchase new equipment. Congratulations to all who were involved.