Finance Committee on May 27th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I will call the meeting to order.

I want to start by explaining that we're here pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 10, 2008, Bill C-50, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget. That's what we're here to do. We're going to go clause-by-clause today.

I remind the committee that we will be completing this today as per a motion of this committee that it be completed by midnight tonight. I remind the committee of that.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the introduction on what we're here to do today.

I do want to introduce a motion related directly to what we'll be working on today. That is that the chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause, before the clause comes to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We have a motion on the floor.

Is there any debate on that motion?

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chairman, initially you said there is already a motion that the entire Bill C-50 be done by the end of the day. Perhaps you can first tell us who moved that motion and when that was done.

Secondly, I want to speak against the motion in front of us. The reason I want to do so is that I believe closure even before we start the debate, in giving only five minutes per clause on such an important bill, is grossly unfair. The NDP had earlier put a motion to ask that this committee do joint travel to look at this bill and hear from people across the country. That was voted down.

We believe that in just one clause alone, for example, for part 6, clause 116, you cannot express within five minutes the kinds of amendments and the impact they would have. As you know, the New Democrats have only one member. That means our entire party would have five minutes at this committee to debate a clause that is of great significance.

If you're going to call a vote on this motion, I'm asking that this be a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'll go one step further on your first request. We will read the motion that was put forward by the committee earlier.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-François Pagé]

It was on May 7. I have only the French version here. I'll read the French version.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's fine. I know the motion.

[The Clerk]

It reads as follows:

That the Committee wait for the findings of the study of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in its report to be tabled no later than May 26, 2008, and that the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-50 be completed on Tuesday, May 27, 2008, and that this be reported to the House at the first opportunity.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Who moved the motion?

[The Clerk]

It was Mr. Pacetti.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Pacetti moved it.

We're going to go back to the original motion. That was just clarification for everybody on the committee. We have opened debate on that motion.

You want a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

The motion is carried. We'll proceed now.

I recognize the amendments that have come forward to this point, and I'd like to group them if it's possible. There are no amendments on clauses 2 to 116. We'll postpone the preamble as well as the short title until the end. We'll go from clauses 2 to 115, I believe it is.

Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I move that all clauses with no amendments be agreed to on division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We have a motion on the floor that all clauses that are not to be amended be adopted as is on division.

Madam Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I'm going to amend that motion by adding “with the exception of clauses 118 and 119 and clauses 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, and 111”. It's the entire section entitled “Federal Financial Assistance for Students”, and also the entire part 7, which is “Employment Insurance”.

As you know, the New Democrats have a series of amendments. Those amendments, of course, would be exempt, but I just want to make sure that every one of those amendments—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Do you have an amendment on those clauses?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I want to speak for or against those clauses, but not necessarily amend them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, I understand.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

To be more precise, it would be part 5, which is “Federal Financial Assistance for Students”; part 6, which is the “Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”, and part 7, which is “Employment Insurance”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Understanding and recognizing what you're saying, can we go in this motion from clause 2 to clause 100? Then, I understand, you want to speak to some of them beyond 100.

Is that fair?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I'm amending Mr. Crête's motion to make sure these are exempt. I believe it's a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's fair enough. Do you have the numbers? As I see it, it's clause 101 and clauses 102 to 111.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Yes, that was the first section; then the second section is the immigration one, which is clauses 116, 117, 118, and 119. If you then look at employment insurance—I believe people may want to talk about that—it is from clause 121 to clause 135. I'm exempting all of those, starting from 110 to 135. Those are the three sections we are interested in discussing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

So it's part 5, part 6, and part 7. In essence, that's exactly what I said earlier, but fair enough.

Do you see this as a friendly amendment?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

No. Let us put it to a vote.