We have Mr. Poilievre.
Evidence of meeting #7 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #7 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
We would like to have the CRA officials back on Monday, with the Auditor General.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Well, I think that right now we're into somewhat informal discussions. I'd like to get a response. We can go into the formality of a motion, but if we have agreement from the other committee members to bring back the CRA officials and bring the Auditor General, then we can very quickly and amicably amend the original Terry Beech motion accordingly. If there is no such consensus, then I guess we can proceed to debate.
We have a suggestion from Mr. Blaikie, which I think was intended to break the logjam, and what we've proposed is how we would go about taking his advice.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Just for clarity, so we can maybe consider this a friendly amendment, would that visit take place at the same time as Mr. Blaikie's witness's visit, at noon on Monday?
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
We are flexible. If Mr. Blaikie's witness wants an hour beforehand or if we move things around, we're not insisting that it happen at the same time.
The good news—
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
It's acceptable as long as it's at the same time, Mr. Chair.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Yes, just in time for Christmas.
All right. Do we have agreement, then, on those witnesses as a friendly amendment?
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
All right. What I will do, then, is withdraw my original amendment for now.
Mr. Chair, I'll let you confer.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
What I would then do is withdraw my original amendment, and the original motion would then be amended to include the Auditor General and the CRA officials who were here today, who will appear.
Mr. Blaikie would have to accept the friendly amendment to the friendly amendment.
3:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Very well. I think the question we want to pose to the committee, Mr. Chair, is whether we have unanimous consent to add the Canadian Labour Congress, the Auditor General and the CRA officials who appeared today to Mr. Beech's original motion as witnesses who would be invited, and that those three witnesses would be invited for 12 o'clock. I think there is some discretion for the chair as to whether they would come at 12 and for an hour or two hours. I'm certainly happy to leave that as an open question to you to exercise some discretion, given the fact that there are more witnesses now for that space than there were before.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Yes, I understand. Thank you very much for that, Mr. Blaikie.
Witnesses like the Auditor General have been invited and have not been able to attend our meeting. What would be the case if they are not able to make it? Will that be built into the amendment?
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
The motion as originally drafted and then amended was to invite. That is what we'll do. We'll do so in all good faith, given the committee's will.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
One moment. We're just looking at the motion for clarity. Is it “without further debate or amendment” in part d)?
Yes, it's for clarity.
December 10th, 2021 / 3:15 p.m.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
Good afternoon. I'm the legislative clerk for Bill C-2.
My question regarding the motion is about paragraph d), where it reads “that at 10 p.m. on Monday, December 13, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment”. I would like to know if, in the part of the amendment we are talking about, the amendments that are in the package that we're—
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Pardon me, Mr. Chair.
The interpreter is flagging that they can't hear the clerk. Can he bring his mike closer to his mouth or take off his mask?
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Yes. To clarify, we're talking about amendments necessary to clarify or to dispose.
3:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Right. The question I have for you is, what do you understand by “amendment”? Are those the amendments that were in the package, the ones that were submitted beforehand, or are they new amendments that will be submitted during the course of the debate?