Finance Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the 10th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance to order. The order of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 2, 2009, is Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures. This is the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.

Members, I just want to make a couple of points. We do have two legislative clerks with us, if we require their expertise on procedure. I think they've been helping members with their amendments. It's a very large bill, so it may take some time to go through. I will go through each clause, and when we come to a clause where there is a proposed amendment, I will ask the member to move the amendment. Then I will give the ruling on the amendment, whether it is admissible or not. Of course, members can appeal to the committee.

Also, for members' information, we do have officials from the Department of Finance here in the room. If there are any questions on any particular subject, please indicate that to me and I will call the relevant officials to the table for any information they can provide to us.

So I'm going to proceed fairly slowly, as we do have a large bill. I want to make sure that we know exactly what we're doing.

We'll start clause-by-clause consideration pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

(On clause 2)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I will just indicate to members that I do not, as of yet, have any amendments for clauses 2 to 223.

Are there any members who wish to speak to any of the clauses between clauses 2 and 223?

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, in order to facilitate the work of our committee and to avoid delaying anything unduly, I would like to tell you that the New Democratic Party will be requesting a recorded vote for each clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you want a recorded vote on every single clause?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You want a recorded vote on all 471 clauses?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I am requesting a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Is a delay tactic such as this not votable? We watched this in the softwood lumber debate, and it was simply a ploy to slow up the process. I thought that most politicians here recognized the need to get this through. If one member of the committee wants to hold up this entire committee for an opportunity to grandstand, can we vote on this, Mr. Chair, whether or not all of this needs to be by recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

I do have Mr. Pacetti, and then I'll go to you, Mr. Mulcair.

Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I have no problem voting on each clause. But I think if you perhaps looked at bunching them or putting them in tighter groups, it would probably be more conducive. Then you can just carry over the votes to the next clause, as we normally do in the House.

I think if you ask for the consent of the committee for that, if you seek it, you will find it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it is for the express purpose of accelerating our work that I like the suggestion made by Mr. Pacetti to group together the clauses requiring no amendment.

But because it is a question that was raised by Mr. Menzies and you allowed him to speak to it, and I assume you're going to accord me the same privilege, I will say that not only was Mr. Menzies' personal attack totally untoward, it was also misguided. I'm not going to be made to feel guilty as a member of Parliament for doing the job I was elected to do, which is to see how Parliament spends its money. It's not our fault that your government suspended Parliament and prorogued it for two months. The attribution of undue intentions on our part is of course unparliamentary, and Mr. Menzies should apologize, but I know he won't.

But I will tell you this. We're going to do our jobs and we're going to do them with our heads held high. We think it's scandalous that the Liberals are supporting the Conservatives on issues that take away women's rights, take away environmental protections, take away union rights, and do nothing for the unemployed. So yes, we will be forcing votes on these issues because we think that the Canadian public wants to know what groups are able to stand up for them. They'll know that the Liberal Party of Canada has completely caved in and no longer represents anything in terms of principle.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, I allowed it, and I allowed Mr. Menzies to make his point as well.

As the chair, my understanding is that if members ask for a recorded vote on each clause, there will be a recorded vote on each clause. My sense, though, is that Mr. Pacetti asked that we group certain clauses together, particularly where there are no amendments put forward by any party, and that Mr. Mulcair was open to that suggestion.

Mr. Pacetti, is this on a point of order?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

No, but if we're back on the motion by Mr. Mulcair, I have another friendly comment, if I may.

At the end of the bill, we're going to be voting on the bill in its entirety, so I think Mr. Mulcair can also make his point at that stage. I don't think he needs to, necessarily, but that's what I offer as my suggestion and my point.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Members are free to debate amendments, but they're also free to make statements on any clause they wish.

Now, for the information of the committee, the chair does not have any amendments between clauses 2 and 223.

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I think it would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, since this will be our first vote on the bill, to give a little bit of background on these clauses, their insertion generally into this Bill C-10, and the process we're going through today.

Having just accepted graciously the suggestion that we group those clauses that don't form the object of any amendment right now, it's worth bearing in mind that Bill C-10 is the continuity of the fiscal and financial update that was brought in on November 27 by the Conservative government. It should be borne in mind that at the time there was a strong parliamentary reaction by all three opposition parties for three reasons. One, the update withdrew women's rights by taking away the ability to effectively contest issues involving equal pay for work of equal value. Two, it removed the party financing that had been put in place in the wake of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, which was, as we all know, the biggest political corruption scandal in the history of Canadian politics. Three, it took away union rights and the ability to bargain collectively and effectively. So those three subjects brought the opposition parties together and we were ready to defeat the government.

What's interesting to note as a prologue to our discussion here today is that of those three key issues, only one was solved. The budget no longer takes away the Liberals' party financing. I say the Liberals because the Liberals depend more on public financing proportionally than any of the other parties. The two other issues, women's rights and union rights, are still being taken away by this bill. What is fascinating to watch—and we're about to make proof of that—is that the Liberals are going to vote for it every step of the way. Now that they've gotten what they wanted for their own purposes, they're abandoning women, they're abandoning the environment, and they're abandoning social and union rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on clauses 2 to 223 inclusive? We will have a recorded vote that will apply to those clauses.

(Clauses 2 to 223 inclusive agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)

(On clause 224)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Members, we will go now to amendment BQ-1. Will it be Monsieur Carrier? I will just indicate that I do have rulings on certain amendments, so I will ask at this point, does the member wish to move the amendment?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Carrier, I have to give a ruling on this amendment.

Bill C-10 provides for new schedules concerning weeks of benefits. The amendment BQ-1 seeks to amend the bill so that schedule 8 remains in effect after September 11, 2010.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 655:

An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it exceeds the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation; therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

Because amendment BQ-4 is consequential on BQ-1, this ruling applies to it as well. Therefore, amendments BQ-1 and BQ-4 are inadmissible.

The chair's rulings are not debatable, but members can challenge the ruling if they so choose.

Monsieur Crête.

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

I do not want to challenge the decision, but I simply want to make sure that I have understood correctly. You consider our desire to have the five additional weeks of employment insurance benefits made permanent to be out of order. That means the benefit which will be given to the unemployed will be valid for a maximum period of two years. If I understood you correctly, we cannot make this measure permanent as part of our consideration of the bill. In order to do this, we would need new legislation that would be presented by either a member of Parliament or the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You cannot make it permanent without having a royal recommendation.