Evidence of meeting #84 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-52.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I am told that a list of witnesses had been provided, and that they were ready to come tomorrow. A number of people...
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I think that a list has been sent to the clerk. Whatever the case, I think that witnesses who are ready...
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
I am part of this committee and I have had no information that says that the list of witnesses was supposed to be sent today or tomorrow.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
If we decide that it is tomorrow, witnesses will be interested and will be ready to provide evidence on the important questions that have been raised.
We could work like this: we could set aside half an hour to listen to the submissions, and one member from each party could get together to try and come to an understanding.
I feel that the witnesses who want to be heard would prefer to do it tomorrow rather than not at all.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Agreed. This is not a point of order. I cannot accept this motion because it is not in accordance with the procedure. First, we need unanimous consent. Then there are witnesses here, and I prefer to hear them. If we do not intend to hear them, we are going to let them leave. But we cannot debate it.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Can we ask the clerk if the 48 hours' notice is in fact necessary? This motion deals with the subject that we are discussing.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Chair, you ruled. You are overruled by the committee.
The motion requires 48 hours notice, unless it's waived by unanimous consent by the committee. The committee did not give unanimous consent. Therefore, we are in a position where we should be proceeding with the witnesses.
It's perfectly obvious that the Conservative Party wishes to ram this bill through. They do not want to hear from Canadians about the income trust, the interest deductibility, and the provincial transfers issues. There are so many things that they do not want.
I would make the point, Mr. Chair, that this bill has been in limbo since March 19. It's been a very long period of time between March 19 and now, before it came before the committee.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Yes, just so I understand the rules, Mr. Chair, you're saying—which is not my experience in another committee—that because it's been decided at the beginning of this committee what the procedure was on 48 hours, the committee cannot control its own destiny on what they want to deal with when.
Based on your discussion with the clerk, my question is, where is it written that it has to be unanimous consent?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was going to ask the same question. I'm on the international trade committee, and if I ask through the chair for the clerk to speak, the clerk clarifies. She can speak into the microphone.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
I'm acting chair. I'm not comfortable with a decision about what's going to go on here, so the meeting is adjourned.
