Finance Committee on Jan. 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Any comment specific to that amendment?

Mr. Peterson.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

This bill is going to do a lot more than just--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'm sorry, Mr. Peterson, but it's just to the amendment. If you wish to make a comment on the amendment, that's fine. If not, hold your tongue.

Madam Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I'm still trying to understand the Bloc's position. They have indicated all along that they're in support of the government's ways and means motion, yet they participated with Mr. McCallum in calling this committee to Ottawa when we all had commitments in our constituencies and were doing very important work. Now we understand that there really is no thought-out plan on the part of both the Liberals and the Bloc.

This is a game. It's changing by the minute. One minute we're here to talk about the bill, the next minute we're not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Madam Wasylycia-Leis, order, please.

Our members are entitled to bring amendments to motions. Mr. Paquette has just brought an amendment. I'd like you to speak to that amendment, if you would.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, I was in fact getting to that point.

Suddenly the discussion is not about the ways and means motion and the tax on income trusts and all of the other provisions, but about the broad issue. He's suggesting that we have these hearings notwithstanding everything that is in the ways and means motion, which is everything listed by the parliamentary secretary in her motion that she presented to this committee.

So I ask you, Mr. Chairperson, what is the point of this meeting? What is the urgency? What are we trying to do here? These two parties are making us the laughingstock of Parliament across the country. How much money have we spent to bring all of us here, to use all of the staff, for a day of discussion on a vague, innocuous project that has no purpose and no clear agenda?

I would speak against the amendment and against the motion. I would like to hear some reasons why we should actually go outside of the parliamentary process and get this committee involved in extra hearings on an issue that doesn't appear to be urgent. If we're not talking about the bill, then what's the urgency? If it's to have vague hearings, then I would suggest to Mr. Paquette that he put that on the agenda when we meet in the next hour and we will all discuss our priorities. I for one have a number of issues that I think should be dealt with on an urgent basis--for example, the Bank Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No, we don't need examples. I'll just answer your--

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

On a point of order--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No, you have no point of order yet. I'll acknowledge it when you do. Right now I'm answering your comments.

In reference to the legitimacy of the meeting, Standing Order 106(4) says:

(4) Within five days of the receipt, by the clerk of a standing committee, of a request signed by any four members of the said committee, the Chair of the said committee shall convene such a meeting provided that forty-eight hours' notice is given of the meeting. For the purposes of this section, the reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request.

That has been done. We've met the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The meeting is quite legitimate.

I'd ask you to conclude your comments on the amendment proposed by Mr. Paquette, which proposes to include reference to notwithstanding its intent to show support in principle for the intentions of the government's legislation.

Would you conclude your comments now, please?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Chairperson, you're quite right, there is a process that allows this to happen. When Parliament passed that standing order, though, it was intended to be used on a serious basis, not on a whim of a political party trying to grandstand, not on a frivolous basis. Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest to you that I came to this meeting waiting to hear that. We didn't hear it before. We couldn't get anything from Mr. McCallum before. I'm waiting to hear that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Your comments are at an end, and we will take your comments, I assume, as opposition to the amendment.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I have already said they were in opposition to that, and I was explaining my position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Yes. Good.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If you don't mind, as a new member I may have a couple of questions, just so I understand, before I make my decision about whether I will support the amendment.

If I understand the amendment correctly, it recognizes in principle the ways and means motion that has been previously passed in the House of Commons. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Paquette, I'll let you respond to Mr. Wallace's question.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

It is more than that, because the committee is also expressing its support for the ways and means motion. However, once we have this notice, we must deal with the bill. However, the committee has already said that it agrees with the principles. Consequently, market uncertainty, which was mentioned both by the NDP and the parliamentary secretary, will no longer be a problem. We know that there may be some changes, but they will be marginal.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay, you have answered my question. Thank you.

The second question is if we all--well, we've heard from one member who is not supporting the amendment, but if we support the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and let's assume that the Liberals support it, does that mean that everybody who supports it is supporting in principle the ways and means motion that has been passed in the House of Commons to date?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I would ask you to repeat your question.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The question is for me to make a decision on whether to support the amendment or not. If an individual member supports the amendment, are they then in principle supporting the ways and means motion that was passed in the House of Commons?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You're supporting the business before the committee. In essence, you're supporting this amendment's intent, which is to design a motion--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That's not what I'm hearing from the mover of the amendment. The mover of the amendment is clearly indicating that he is moving the amendment to show that this committee is in support of that ways and means motion. That's what I heard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Wallace, the intent of your second question is to make it clear to everyone what you're thinking when you vote on the motion.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That is correct, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, at least until I heard this question, I thought it would be fine for us Liberals to support the amendment, because it is just expressing a fact that in this standing committee, the majority, not including the Liberals, supported this idea before. So unless some of my colleagues have a different interpretation or unless....

Is my interpretation correct, Mr. Paquette? If we vote for your amendment, that does not mean that we supported the idea from the beginning, which clearly is not the case, but rather that we are recognizing the fact that the majority of members of this committee voted for this.