Evidence of meeting #20 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was inclusive.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We will go to part 20, environmental assessment, clauses 2152 to 2171.
There is a tie vote. The chair is in favour.
(Clauses 2152 to 2171 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
We are at part 21, the Canada Labour Code, clauses 2172 to 2179.
(Clauses 2172 to 2179 inclusive agreed to on division)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Part 22 is on payments to certain entities, clauses 2180 to 2183.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I want it on division, but I record my vote in favour of it.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I'm not desperate. Occasionally you actually have a good idea around here. This one is actually a good one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
So it's on division?
John McKay is in a good mood. We will record that.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Let the record show....
(Clauses 2180 to 2183 inclusive agreed to on division)
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
There is a tie vote. The chair is in favour.
(Clause 2184 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
We're at part 24, employment insurance financing, clauses 2185 to 2207.
Mr. Martin, do you want a recorded vote?
Conservative
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Just very briefly, I think what's worth noting and should be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, especially given the importance of this particular clause and how vehemently the NDP stands in opposition to these particular clauses, is that even though we're in a minority Parliament, and even though the composition of committees is such that it's supposed to reflect the membership of the parties in Parliament—in other words, committees are constituted in such a way that the opposition in fact has the majority at committees, and a vote like this would not normally carry, if all of the opposition parties brought all of their members to the committee today....
Now, the NDP brought all the members they're allowed to have, which is one, which is me. The Bloc Québécois is in full attendance; they're represented by both of the committee members they're allowed to have. For some reason, the Liberals are lacking one member of the committee.
Many of the important votes that we've just seen pass in a tie, with the chair breaking the tie—which is a rare occasion.... In fact, committees are constituted in such a way that a neutral chair is not often put in the position of having to break a tie. It's the exception, not the rule; yet we have just seen the chair vote in favour of a number of articles that the three opposition parties combined are opposed to. In any normal setting, that would mean that those clauses would not succeed, but would fail.
I think it's worth noting and putting on the record that the majority of Parliament is opposed to these very clauses that have been passing—hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of clauses that have been passing in the budget implementation bill. People can draw their own conclusion on the dynamics that are at play here, especially in terms of this one last part, part 24, dealing with the Employment Insurance Act. We've let the public down. We've let down the people who voted to send us here to Parliament, by not showing up for work to vote against the very clauses they sent us here to vote against.
So I'd like to see a recorded vote on part 24, and I'd like it duly noted that the opposition is not here in full numbers and that this is why these appalling clauses are in fact being passed at the committee stage.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
Is there debate on these clauses?
Mr. Del Mastro.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I have just a quick comment, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, as the member would well know, bills are often brought before the House. We don't presuppose at committee whether a bill would pass or not; that's why we have standing votes in the House of Commons.
The member presupposes that the absence of a given member is in fact determining whether these clauses or this bill would succeed or fail. I'd suggest that it's not fair to project onto anyone whether something would pass or fail if the membership were in fact somewhat different. It may be changing the number of times that the chair is being asked to break ties, but I think it's unfair to suggest that the outcome of these votes would be any different.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
We have a call for a recorded vote on clauses 2185 to 2207.
There is a tie vote. The chair votes yes.
(Clauses 2185 to 2207 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5.)
We have clause 2208, the coming-into-force clause.
(Clause 2208 agreed to on division)
(Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to on division)
(Clause 1 agreed to on division)
Shall the title carry?
