This is a single
speech (house debate) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
This is a single
speech (house debate) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
{
"time": "2008-03-12 15:25:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)",
"fr": ""
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"966111\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the official opposition finance critic. It seems to me that including in the ways and means notice tabled this week provisions directly or indirectly affecting Bill <a data-HoCid=\"3072975\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-253/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)\">C-253</a> is politically abusive and unparliamentary.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"966112\" data-originallang=\"fr\">It must be kept in mind that the intent of the ways and means notice is to implement the budget implementation bill tabled on February 26. The ways and means notice was tabled on March 11, but Bill <a data-HoCid=\"3072975\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-253/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)\">C-253</a> was passed by this House between those two dates. Had the bill been passed after March 11, the <a data-HoCid=\"78777\" href=\"/politicians/jim-flaherty/\" title=\"Jim Flaherty\">Minister of Finance</a> and the government would not have been in a position to include provisions that short-circuit the majority decision of this House. In my opinion, it is totally contrary to the rules to include in the ways and means notice any provisions relating to Bill C-253. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"966113\" data-originallang=\"fr\">If the government is dissatisfied, it has other parliamentary methods at its disposal for reopening the debate. At this point in time, however, it would be totally abusive and unparliamentary to include in the ways and means notice provisions relating to Bill <a data-HoCid=\"3072975\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-253/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)\">C-253</a>. Moreover, the government has made no secret of the fact that the ways and means notice includes provisions to override Bill C-253. We do not want to hear that the ways and means notice contains some elements that are substantially different from Bill C-253, because the government has admitted publicly that it would use the ways and means notice to override the majority decision by this House. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"966114\" data-originallang=\"fr\">As well, the figures presented by the <a data-HoCid=\"105836\" href=\"/politicians/peter-van-loan/\" title=\"Peter Van Loan\">leader of the government in the House of Commons</a> are pretty well ridiculous. If they were on the up and up, I fail to understand why the Finance Department and the <a data-HoCid=\"78777\" href=\"/politicians/jim-flaherty/\" title=\"Jim Flaherty\">Minister of Finance</a> did not raise them at the Standing Committee on Finance during examination of Bill <a data-HoCid=\"3072975\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-253/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)\">C-253</a>. I was there, and the department people were asked to give a figure for the cost of the measure proposed by the Liberal member who tabled Bill C-253, but no reply was ever forthcoming. That was last spring. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"966115\" data-originallang=\"fr\">How can it be that, 365 days or so later, they have not been able to let all parliamentarians know that this measure would cost $900 million? I hold no faith in that figure. It cropped up once the House had passed the bill. It is also very clear that the bill has other processes to go through, in the Senate in particular, and will probably not affect the <a data-HoCid=\"78777\" href=\"/politicians/jim-flaherty/\" title=\"Jim Flaherty\">Minister of Finance</a>'s budgetary framework for the current year. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"966116\" data-originallang=\"fr\">For all these reasons, it seems to me that we are faced here with a tactic that is unparliamentary and politically abusive. As my Liberal colleague has done, I would request that you find out of order all those sections which, directly or indirectly, with Bill <a data-HoCid=\"3072975\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-253/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)\">C-253</a>. </p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"966111\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je me l\u00e8ve en cette Chambre pour appuyer le porte-parole en mati\u00e8re de finances de l'opposition officielle. Il me semble que l'inclusion, dans l'avis de voies et moyens d\u00e9pos\u00e9 cette semaine, de dispositions touchant directement ou indirectement au projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"3072975\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-253/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)\">C-253</a> est abusif au plan politique et non conforme \u00e0 l'objectif de la tradition parlementaire. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"966112\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Il faut se rappeler que l'avis de voies et moyens vise \u00e0 mettre en place la Loi d'ex\u00e9cution du budget, qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9pos\u00e9 le 26 f\u00e9vrier. Or, l'avis de voies et moyens a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9pos\u00e9 le 11 mars, mais le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"3072975\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-253/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)\">C-253</a> a \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9 par cette Chambre entre ces deux dates. Si le projet de loi avait \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9 apr\u00e8s le 11 mars, le <a data-HoCid=\"78777\" href=\"/politicians/jim-flaherty/\" title=\"Jim Flaherty\">ministre des Finances</a> et le gouvernement n'auraient pas \u00e9t\u00e9 en mesure d'inclure des dispositions court-circuitant la d\u00e9cision majoritaire de cette Chambre. \u00c0 mon avis, il est tout \u00e0 fait contraire au R\u00e8glement de retrouver dans l'avis de voies et moyens des \u00e9l\u00e9ments qui touchent au projet de loi C-253. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"966113\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Si le gouvernement n'est pas satisfait, il a \u00e0 sa disposition d'autres m\u00e9thodes au plan parlementaire pour revenir sur le d\u00e9bat. Toutefois, au moment o\u00f9 on se parle, il serait totalement abusif et non conforme au plan parlementaire d'inclure au sein de l'avis de voies et moyens des dispositions qui touchent au projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"3072975\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-253/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)\">C-253</a>. D'ailleurs, publiquement, le gouvernement ne s'est pas cach\u00e9 pour dire qu'on trouverait \u00e0 l'int\u00e9rieur de l'avis de voies et moyens des \u00e9l\u00e9ments pour contrecarrer le projet de loi C-253. Qu'on ne nous dise pas qu'il y a dans l'avis de motion de voies et moyens des choses substantiellement diff\u00e9rentes du projet de loi C-253, puisque publiquement, le gouvernement a admis qu'il utiliserait l'avis de voies et moyens pour contrecarrer la d\u00e9cision majoritaire de cette Chambre. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"966114\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Deuxi\u00e8mement, les chiffres pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par le <a data-HoCid=\"105836\" href=\"/politicians/peter-van-loan/\" title=\"Peter Van Loan\">leader du gouvernement \u00e0 la Chambre des communes</a> sont passablement loufoques. Si ces chiffres s'\u00e9taient r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9s vrais, je ne comprends pas pourquoi le minist\u00e8re des Finances et le <a data-HoCid=\"78777\" href=\"/politicians/jim-flaherty/\" title=\"Jim Flaherty\">ministre des Finances</a> n'en ont pas fait \u00e9tat au Comit\u00e9 permanent des finances quand le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"3072975\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-253/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)\">C-253</a> a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tudi\u00e9. J'y \u00e9tais et on a demand\u00e9 aux fonctionnaires de chiffrer le co\u00fbt de la mesure propos\u00e9e par le d\u00e9put\u00e9 lib\u00e9ral qui a d\u00e9pos\u00e9 le projet de loi C-253, mais on n'a jamais obtenu de r\u00e9ponse. On parle du printemps dernier.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"966115\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Comment se fait-il qu'avec un d\u00e9lai d'environ 365 jours, on n'ait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 capable de faire savoir \u00e0 l'ensemble des parlementaires que cette mesure co\u00fbterait 900 millions de dollars? Je ne crois pas du tout \u00e0 ce chiffre. Il est apparu une fois que la Chambre a adopt\u00e9 ce projet de loi. Il est \u00e9galement tr\u00e8s clair que le projet de loi passera \u00e0 travers d'autres processus, en particulier par le S\u00e9nat, et qu'il n'affectera probablement pas le cadre budg\u00e9taire du <a data-HoCid=\"78777\" href=\"/politicians/jim-flaherty/\" title=\"Jim Flaherty\">ministre des Finances</a> pour l'ann\u00e9e financi\u00e8re en cours. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"966116\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Pour toutes ces raisons, il me semble qu'on fait face ici \u00e0 une tactique qui est non conforme au plan parlementaire et qui est abusive au plan politique. \u00c0 l'instar de mon coll\u00e8gue lib\u00e9ral, je vous demande de d\u00e9clarer irrecevables toutes les sections qui portent indirectement ou directement sur le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"3072975\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-253/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)\">C-253</a>.</p>"
},
"url": "/debates/2008/3/12/pierre-paquette-1/",
"politician_url": "/politicians/pierre-paquette/",
"politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1781/",
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "2371921",
"h1": {
"en": "Oral Questions",
"fr": ""
},
"h2": {
"en": "Points of Order",
"fr": ""
},
"h3": {
"en": "Ways and Means Motion No. 10",
"fr": ""
},
"document_url": "/debates/2008/3/12/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2008%2F3%2F12%2F"
}
}