Finance Committee on Oct. 31st, 2012

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I think that proposal's very reasonable, given that we just saw this motion now and saw the dates we had previously agreed to. We had other meetings scheduled for November 20 and 21. What happens with those? Do we continue with the meeting on the 20th? We don't know.

I also have a question about the timing of these committees wrapping up one day and then getting any report, recommendation, or amendments the very next day. If I remember, with Bill C-38, we were meeting very long hours as a finance committee, and some other committees were meeting simultaneously. Then we went immediately into clause-by-clause examination of the bill. Frankly, there was no time to get a report. There was no time to get any proposed recommendations. It was a very bad way to examine a bill.

Unless this is just window dressing, if we're going to go through the trouble of having these other committees examine the bill, then at a minimum we would want to get together with all the people from our team that have been part of these discussions and get their feedback and input. Frankly, with one day, we're not able to do that.

These are arguments I can make at the subcommittee. I don't think it's reasonable to throw this at us today. I have here the original schedule that we all agreed to; I don't think it's fair to throw that out the window without going back to the subcommittee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Jean, please.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to see this go to a vote tonight, and I would like to see it as soon as possible.

What I don't understand in all of this is that this is exactly what the opposition has been asking for. This is what they asked for in the House. This is what they asked for in the media. This is what they asked for in committee. Can you not take yes for an answer? Let's deal with the matter now. We've opened up a lot of this in most of the committees, which is obviously a show of good faith on our behalf.

Certainly we have a majority here, but we're showing that we can cooperate and work towards the opposition's agenda to study the bill more thoroughly. As a result of that, I think they should take this position of the government with open arms, thank them, and get on with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

We'll have Mr. Mai and then Mr. Brison.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

There were two points that were raised. One was by Mr. Hoback, regarding the fact that we want to send it to committee and that we should trust people in the other committees. I agree, and if we trust them, we should also allow them to vote on it. I mean, maybe that's—

[An hon. member]

It's our vote.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

If we send it to other committees to study it, make amendments, and actually vote on it, then why have it coming back? If we have to vote on it here and we have to look at what other parties....

Through the chair, yesterday you were talking about knowing what our party has done. That's fine, but what other amendments have been put forward by any party? We have to look at that since we have to vote on it. I don't think it's fair to say that on one day we get all the amendments and on the day after we're supposed to understand all the implications of those amendments.

Also, regarding the schedule, Ms. Glover mentioned that the idea of November 22 was because we wanted to follow the schedule that we have. I think the schedule was done well, in the sense that without changing all the dates, we can still stick to November 29 and have clause-by-clause consideration on the 29th. On the rest of it, we're not really changing the schedule in terms of the other studies that we're doing.

Let's not forget that there's also a week in the ridings. If we look at November 29, we can see that there's one week in the ridings, so there is a lot of time that is being lost by the other committees in regard to actually looking at the implications of Bill C-45. There's a whole week when we're not sitting and not actually looking at all these issues.

Hopefully, the members opposite will accept that we should take the time to look at it. A subcommittee looked at the fact that with the 29th we had enough time to send it to the Senate and everything. I think we should stick to that at least.

Thank you.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

To Mr. Jean's point, I know that what our party was calling for—and I believe the NDP was as well—is actually dividing up the bill, not just for study at committee but ultimately for other relevant committees to do a clause-by-clause study and vote on it, as we believe it ought to be. I just wanted to clarify that it's not that we're not taking “yes” for an answer; this is actually far less than what we were seeking in terms of parliamentary scrutiny.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have two quick points.

I agree with Mr. Brison about the fact that what we have been pushing for is to divide the bill and give committees the power to take ownership, to take responsibility for the bill, and to make decisions about their own part of the bill, which would be normal. It is the very structure of an omnibus bill that we were objecting to. I just want to clarify that for Mr. Jean.

I have also a very specific recommendation. We've just gone through all the parts of the bill being proposed to go to the different committees. With a friendly amendment, I would like to recommend that division 18, on navigable waters, which is slotted to go to the fisheries committee—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Nash, can we address Mr. Caron's motion first?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Then we'll come back to that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean, quickly.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

We have 11 minutes left—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

—before we can't deal with this anymore, and I'm wondering if the opposition is filibustering the gift that we've given them today.

What's the scoop?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My understanding was that I was going to deal with all the amendments to the motion by 5:30 today, so....

Are we okay? Then we'll vote on Monsieur Caron's motion. All in favour? I see four. I see five. All opposed? Six.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That amendment is defeated. I'm going to go to Ms. Nash for her amendment, quickly.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

My amendment is on clauses 316 to 350, division 18, on navigable waters. Those clauses are scheduled to go to the transport committee. I just said the fisheries committee, but what I meant was the transport committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's correct.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

What I am proposing is that they also be studied at the environment committee; division 18 would stay with transport, but I am proposing that it also go to the environment committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Your amendment would be to add the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for clauses....

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Clauses 316 to 350.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It would be clauses 316 to 350 and clauses 425 to 432.

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Discussion on the amendment is as follows: that it is not the practice of committees to set up a situation of having two committees studying the same bill. It's not efficient. It's frankly not advisable. It would cause nothing but problems and actually delay the good work that is done by parliamentarians. It is the practice of the House not to have two committees studying the very same thing at the same time. I don't know why we would change that in this case and make it more cumbersome.

For those reasons, as well as the fact that we're trying to make this as easy, transparent, and open as possible without complicating it more, we'll be voting against that amendment.