Finance Committee on Nov. 21st, 2012

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No, I do not have consent to continue the meeting.

The meeting is suspended. I will see you after the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order, the 94th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. We are still on the motion by Ms. Nash and discussing the amendment of Ms. Glover.

I have Ms. Glover on the speakers list.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just going to put forward a motion to adjourn this discussion on the amendment and proceed to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Glover, can I just get a verification? Do you want to set aside the debate or do you want to go to the vote on the amendment?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I want to go to the vote on the amendment and adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I don't know if you want to refer to O'Brien and Bosc, but you can make a motion that the question be now put, so we can limit debate. I'm not sure what the procedural support is for your motion that we adjourn and go to the vote.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I believe, Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm referring to page 1057 of O'Brien and Bosc, “Motion for the Previous Question”.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Forgive me, Chair, I'm mistaken in saying that we're going to the vote. Adjourn the debate and proceed with what other matters we have on the agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for that clarification, Madam Glover. I'll just refer members to O'Brien and Bosc, page 1057:

A member who moves “That the debate be now adjourned” wishes to temporarily suspend debate underway on a motion or study. If the motion is carried, debate on the motion or study ceases and the committee moves on to the next agenda item.

And that would obviously be discussion of Bill C-45.

Therefore, I will call the question on that, that the debate be now adjourned.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will therefore move to discussion of Bill C-45.

Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I just want to clarify something.

We have adjourned the debate on the amendment, correct? We were previously discussing an amendment to the proposed motion. So, we should now talk about the main motion, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes, that's correct, Monsieur Caron. We have adjourned the debate on the amendment and we are therefore on the motion by Ms. Nash.

Ms. Nash, did you want to discuss the motion?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Sure. I believe that when we have estimates coming out it is important for the minister to have the opportunity to come before the committee and for the members of the committee to be able to ask for clarification and to question the minister on these estimates. We think it's an important part of the minister's responsibility to be accountable to this committee and to the House, through our committee, and we'd like to have the opportunity to be able to put questions to the minister face to face and to hear the minister's personal explanation for the estimates. We think that's part of our accountability to our constituents and to the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

I have Mr. Brison, Ms. Glover, Monsieur Mai, Mr. Van Kesteren, and Mr. Adler.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, I want to speak in support of Ms. Nash's motion. Clearly, it is fundamental to our parliamentary system—ministerial accountability. I must say that earlier in the debate today Monsieur Caron referred to the minister as shirking his responsibilities.

Monsieur Caron, I want to defend our finance minister. I think it's a very unfair characterization, because I'm quite certain if he were asked by this committee to appear, he would definitely appear, and I'm sure you as a fair person, Monsieur Caron, would give him the benefit of the doubt.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Comments go through the chair.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

So we certainly would hope and expect and believe that this minister, who has extensive experience in the provincial legislature of Ontario, in which he served as a minister, and as a federal member of Parliament and minister, would have respect for and an understanding of the fundamental principle of ministerial accountability, and as such would gleefully accept the opportunity to exercise ministerial accountability at the committee.

I just wanted to speak in defence of the minister. I'm sure Monsieur Caron may want to speak to that, come back to that, because in retrospect, he may perhaps withdraw.... I don't think he would want to attack a minister unfairly in that sense.

I thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have a point of order, Mr. Jean.

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

I take it that Mr. Brison just suggested that the minister be asked instead of told to come to the committee meeting, so we can put this matter to a different committee time and then deal with what we have. It sounds like he's suggesting that we put it off, and that we actually ask the minister to come, instead of demanding that he do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Jean, as an experienced parliamentarian, I think you know that's not a point of order. The motion is that the minister be invited.

Thank you for that intervention.

Madam Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Once again, I'm going to put forward a motion to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A motion to adjourn debate on Ms. Nash's motion.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I will therefore move to our clause-by-clause discussion of Bill C-45, a second budget implementation act.

You all have a copy of the motion that was adopted by the committee to deal with the bill in front of you. I would like to ask you all to review it and read it again.

I want to outline for members the motion adopted by the committee on October 30, 2012, in relation to the study of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. I would like to remind the committee of certain important elements of this motion.

First of all, with respect to the timing, in paragraph (d) of the motion adopted by the committee, it states that:

...the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party per clause before the clause is brought to a vote;

So it's five minutes per clause. This is prior to 11:59 p.m., not for amendments. I just want to make sure everyone understands that.

I have two more items. The second is with respect to the end of debate. Paragraph (f) of the motion adopted by the committee states:

(f) if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill....

So at that point I will deal with all of the clauses that are left, if we have not completed our work by 11:59 p.m. That is the second point I want to make.

The third point is an amendment that has been sent to this committee. As you recall, the motion called for the chair to communicate with other committees and invite them to submit suggested amendments to the finance committee. I have received answers from all of the committees, none of which have forwarded any amendments.

However, there is an amendment from a member. This amendment will be considered by the finance committee according to paragraph (c) of the motion. This amendment is from Dr. Fry , who is a member of the health committee.

In paragraph (c) of the motion adopted by the committee, it states:

(c) any amendments suggested by the other Standing Committees...shall be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45....

To explain this so that everyone understands, if we go past 11:59 p.m., at that point I will just be putting the votes on the clauses. If we have amendments left to deal with, I will not be putting forward votes on those amendments.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

Is that your ruling in relation to the amendments?