Finance Committee on Oct. 24th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It was Bill C-38.

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

Bill C-38, our first.... Who could forget Bill C-38? I have fond memories of Bill C-38.

It was our experiences with these bills that led to your party proposing in our committee that we offer independent members the opportunity to come to the—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On the point of order, as Mr. Hoback knows, relevance is interpreted very broadly by the Speaker, but Ms. Nash is arguing that the reason this motion is necessary is because of the budget implementation bills being the way they are. One can agree or disagree with that, but to me, as the chair, it is within the bounds of relevance.

Mr. Jean, do you want to make a further point of order?

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

My point of order is not in relation to the topic. It's just simply that I never expected to start sneezing so early in the process at committee, and I have a little issue. I don't want to miss the vote, so if she's winding down, I'll stay. But otherwise I need to go to the washroom or have somebody bring me some Kleenex, because I'm getting an allergic reaction and I'm not sure from what.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. As your chair, I was hoping to get the calendar dealt with today. We have about 18 minutes left and I have three more speakers on the list. If this debate continues, I won't get to that, and then the whole calendar kind of gets pushed back.

If I could get an indication from the floor, from Ms. Nash and the other three speakers, am I going to be allowed, as the chair, to go to the calendar today, or are we continuing with this debate for some time?

Ms. Nash.

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

Well, Mr. Chair, this is a pretty significant change that we had no advance notice of.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes, I'm not debating that.

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

As I understand it—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm not debating that. I'm just—

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

—and it was confirmed here in the committee, this is a motion that's being presented in other committees. It is really a pretty fundamental change to the rules of this place. I think it's fair that we have a thorough debate and that we not be rushed on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm not disputing that. I'm just asking. I'm just asking as the chair for my own guidance.

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

How long will the discussion continue...?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It's just that we have about 17 minutes and I would like to get to the calendar. If I can't get to the calendar, that's the decision of the committee, but....

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

My suggestion was that we have more time. I know you gave us a few minutes during a recess of the committee. My suggestion was that we think this through a little more thoroughly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The request from the opposition is to have more time.

I look to the mover.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Chair, I don't think more time is going to change the outcome of this, so I think it's not in anybody's best interest to give more time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

I go back to you, Ms. Nash, for your....

Mr. Caron, on a point of order.

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

I would like to know who is currently on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Nash has the floor, and then I have Monsieur Côté, Mr. Hoback, and Mr. Jean.

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

I would also like to speak at the end. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Ms. Nash, please.

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

I was talking about our experience under Bill C-60, and our experience with this kind of motion.

If the members who were on the committee at that time remember, it was a process where parts of the bill were sent out to other committees. Some other members examined the bill in those committees. Then it came back to this committee. We dealt with any amendments, and this is where all the votes took place.

Independent members had the opportunity to make a very brief comment. I think they had a maximum of maybe two minutes allotted to be able to present any amendments they had, but they didn't even have the right to vote on their own amendments. That, to me, seems fundamentally wrong. Surely one of the fundamental rights of a member of Parliament who is sent to Ottawa is the right to vote, and their vote represents their constituency. This motion would take away the right of independent members to vote, to be able to have an impact on the decision of their own motions. I think that is a problem. I don't think that's satisfactory.

I'm a little concerned that this kind of motion was kind of sprung on us here at the committee. It would be a fundamental change to the rules of the way this House operates.

Here we are debating this. It would impact the rights of those independent members of Parliament. What's their crime? Their only crime is that they don't belong to a political party that has enough seats in the House to have official party status. They are still elected by their constituents. They still represent their communities. Every single member of Parliament, whether they are in an officially recognized party or not, has exactly the same rights as others when it comes to that vote and representing their communities.

What I see this motion doing is it's taking away their right to vote. I don't think that makes any sense. I'm concerned that this is something the government is proposing, apparently, in all or in most committees. It would fundamentally change the way we work here. It seems to me to miss the nature of the problem. To me, the nature of the problem is that the government—

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Chair, may I interject and call it a point of order for lack of any other name?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I hope it is a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

You can judge whether it's a point of order.

What I'd like to propose is that we suspend debate until the next meeting, on Tuesday, that we immediately go to finalizing the calendar, and that we dedicate.... We have three hours set aside on Tuesday, October 29. I recommend that we do one hour with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, one hour with the PBO, and the first hour we resume debate on this issue.

What I would propose as a new motion is that we go immediately—