Finance Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I do not understand.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Just a moment please, Mr. Mulcair.

Parliamentary practice does not permit to be done indirectly what cannot be done directly. Those are the words I was looking for.

Monsieur Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Could you please explain it in a way that we can understand, since I have failed to understand a single thing you've said?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

We are not allowed to delete lines if our intention is to delete the entire paragraph. We cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. We cannot delete paragraphs.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I am not questioning your decision, this time, except to say the following. Adjustments will have to be made because what you've just said is exactly the opposite of what the people who helped us to prepare these amendments told us. People will have to communicate with each other because we, the parliamentarians, have some discretion. I don't like the fact that the fundamental right of an MP is subverted by a random decision. The individuals who prepared this for us told us that it was possible to do this. Clearly, the people working with you are saying the opposite. It's a bit frustrating for us, and I would ask you to communicate this reaction.

Just to clarify, then, we will proceed clause by clause and we will have a recorded vote on each clause.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Up to clause 447. Okay.

(Clauses 396 to 408 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Monsieur Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I simply want to ensure that although you are just calling the clause numbers, the committee minutes will show how each person voted, for example in the case of the Liberals, who are voting with the Conservatives, and their names will be recorded. Is that correct?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Yes.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

You may proceed auctioning off the clauses. Go ahead.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

And the paperwork will be completed during question period, if you are in agreement, Mr. Mulcair.

Clauses 409 to 444 inclusive agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Massimo Pacetti]

And the forestry sector is now pleased with Mr. Mulcair.

Clauses 445 and 446 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 447)

Now we are going to amendment NDP-17, which is ruled admissible.

Mr. Mulcair, I'm not sure if you want to speak to this.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment NDP-17 proposes that Bill C-10, in clause 447, be amended

(a) by deleting lines 13 to 17 on page 422. Lines 13 to 17 read as follows:

447.(1) The portion of subsection 10(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following: 10.(1) This Act, other than Part IV.1, does not apply in respect of (2) Subparagraphs 10(1)(j)(ii) and (iii) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following: (ii) soit par l’unité qui est une entité étrangère à laquelle le surintendant des institutions financières a délivré un agrément l’autorisant à garantir au Canada des risques aux termes de la partie XIII [...]

The amendment also proposes deleting line 9 on page 423 to line 6 on page 425.

Here we have a series of amendments, related to the Investment Canada Act, which seek, in our opinion, to ensure that we continue to maintain a certain amount of protection for Canadian companies that would be lost if we dropped the ball and adopted this amendment proposed by the Conservatives and supported by the Liberals.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

The question is on NDP amendment 17. Monsieur Laforest, do you want to speak to this?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I would like the member proposing the amendment to give us more information about the extent of changes he has just proposed.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, one of the concerns we have with the overall proposals made by the Conservatives regarding foreign investments is that it is weakening the system that was put in place in the past. For example, the project eligibility threshold is being increased. Previously a review could occur at a certain level. However, the threshold is now being increased which makes it more difficult to review foreign investments.

Furthermore, there are some things that are truly cause for concern. The example of Air Canada is often mentioned. If we allow foreign interests to take over Air Canada, I am not convinced that bankers, be they in Zurich or Tokyo, will be very interested in knowing whether Air Canada still provides services in Rimouski. We believe that the rules of the game are being changed in a way that is contrary to Canada's interests. Accordingly, we are going to propose an amendment to eliminate this possibility, that we see, of reducing protection already granted under existing legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll have the vote on amendment NDP-17.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 3)

(Clause 447 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(On clause 448)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have NDP amendment 18.

I do want to make a ruling on this amendment. I want to be clear as to why I'm making this ruling. I'm going to actually quote from House of Commons Procedure and Practice. What this amendment does and what all the successive amendments from the NDP do--from amendment 18 to 35--is to seek to delete all the lines of the clause. On page 656, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

An amendment is out of order if it simply attempts to delete a clause, since in that case all that needs to be done is to vote against the adoption of the clause in question.

As members are aware, parliamentary practice states that members cannot do indirectly what cannot be done directly. Therefore, amendment 18 and all successive amendments until 35 will be inadmissible. I hope that's clear.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I would like to ask for a clarification, Mr. Chair.

Could you please look at amendment NDP-17?

I'll say it in English so you don't have to go through the translation.

Would you please take a look at amendment 17? Now, look at paragraph (b). We amended clause 447 by deleting everything from line 9 on page 423 to line 6 on page 425. For all intents and purposes, it's two full pages of text, right? We went through that and it was declared admissible by you. We just voted on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's correct.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Now we're going to something that is one page long and you're declaring it inadmissible. You're going to have to help me out.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I will do so. It's because part of the clause was left in. Amendments 18 to 35 delete the entire clause, but amendment 17, whether you did so intentionally or not, did not delete the entire clause. That is why amendment 17 is admissible and amendments 18 to 35 are inadmissible. You cannot delete the entire clause.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I'm not going to contest your ruling, but because you're the chair of this committee, I will request that you clarify something for the parliamentarians, irrespective of our ideological and party differences. I will request that you clarify that with the people who are with you--not today, but for future reference--because the information, instruction, and advice that we get from the people who are helping us prepare these things, who are also officers of this Parliament, is contrary to the decision that you just made.

I'm not going to contest your decision, because you're doing it in the best of good faith, and I have no doubt about that, and you're basing it on the advice that you're getting here. All I'm telling you is that as a member of this Parliament, I was given advice contrary to the advice you were just given. I would like to have it clarified.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I would be very willing to follow up with you, Mr. Mulcair, and seek to find out who gave you that information. We'll seek to rectify that in the future because, as the chair, all I did was instruct the people who serve, in order to apply the procedures of the House to the ruling--

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I'm not even contesting your decision. I want that to be clear.