Finance Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We will now move to part 8, the Employment Insurance Act amendments. This is clause 160, on pages 199 and 200. Shall clause 160 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clause 160 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Now we'll move to part 9 on the gas tax fund and financing municipal infrastructure. This is clause 161 on page 200.

Shall clause 161 carry?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'd like a recorded vote on this, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We are going to have a recorded vote on clause 161. We'll get the clerk to call the roll.

(Clause 161 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's the first unanimous clause. The official who wrote that gets a bonus.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right. Thank you.

(On clause 162)

There is an amendment on clause 162. It's amendment NDP-2.

Monsieur Mai.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Concerning section 162, we move the following amendment:

(1.1) The Minister shall not make any payment to the Transition Office under subsection (1) until the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a decision in the Matter of a Reference by Governor in Council concerning the proposed Canadian Securities Act, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2010-667, date May 26, 2010, and the Minister has taken that decision into account in determining whether he or she should make any payments to the Transition Office.

Right now, as worded in Bill C-13, this section allows supplementary payments to be made to the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Bureau. As you know, Quebec is opposed to it, as well as six provinces. A $33 million payment has already been approved. We were told by the officials that $14 million have already been spent. All this issue has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and we still don't know whether it is constitutional.

Why then spend so much money for something which might be invalidated and which is opposed by Quebec and other provinces? Ironically, the Conservatives said during the 2001 election campaign that they would not proceed until they had a ruling by the Supreme Court.

That is the amendment we move.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Fine. Thank you, Mr. Mai.

I have a ruling on this amendment as well.

Bill C-13 amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act to allow the minister to make additional payments to the transition office above the previous $33-million threshold.

This amendment attempts to restrict the minister's ability to make these payments until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a decision in the matter of a reference by the Governor in Council concerning the proposed Canadian Securities Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of this restriction on the minister's ability to make payments is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-13 and is therefore inadmissible.

The ruling is not debatable, and therefore the amendment is inadmissible.

Thank you.

We'll go, then, to clause 162.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I would just remind the member that he can discuss clause 162, but the ruling is made. I'm going to remind the member to speak to clause 162 generally, then.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Well, Mr. Chair, I've never had occasion to challenge any of your rulings. I am sure it is, as you've described, well founded in the traditions of the House, but I do want to speak to clause 162, because it very clearly is another example of the government steamrolling over the provinces.

We've seen this with the crime bill and throwing billions of dollars in additional charges onto the provinces. We've seen this in a number of other issues.

Now we have this intent to set up a transition for an office to which, as my colleague Mr. Mai has indicated, the majority of provinces are opposed. My province of British Columbia is concerned about this attempt as well.

It is clearly not an appropriate clause within this bill. To throw this into an omnibus budget bill that covers so many different aspects is inappropriate, and I cannot vote in favour of this particular clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your comments.

We'll now hear from Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I categorically refute many of the comments made by Mr. Julian. In fact, he's talking outside of what is in fact in the BIA. The government will be supporting the BIA's clause 162 as it is written.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Shall clause 162 carry?

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I think we could have a recorded vote on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We will have a recorded vote on clause 162.

(Clause 162 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We will now discuss part 11 and the Wage Earner Protection Program Act. This is dealing with clauses 163 and 164, on page 201.

Shall clauses 163 and 164 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 163 and 164 agreed to on division)

We'll now move to part 12, amendments relating to employment, and we have clauses 165 to 169 on page 202.

Shall clauses 165 to 169 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 165 to 169 inclusive agreed to on division)

We will now move to part 13, the Judges Act, and clause 170 on page 203.

Shall clause 170 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.