Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

Evidence of meeting #189 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-86

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lori Straznicky Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Peter Fragiskatos London North Centre, Lib.

Kim Rudd Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Richard Stuart Executive Director, Expenditure Analysis and Compensation Planning, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Blaine Langdon Director, Charities, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Pierre Mercille Director General, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Mark Schaan Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry

Khusro Saeedi Economist, Consumer Affairs, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Cathy McLeod Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC

Eric Grant Director, Community Lands Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Christopher Duschenes Director General, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Blake Richards Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Barbara Moran Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Sébastien St-Arnaud Senior Policy Strategist, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Charles Philippe Rochon Senior Policy Analyst, Labour Standards and Wage Earner Protection Program, Workplace Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development

Deirdre Kent Director General, International Assistance Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Louisa Pang Director, International Finance and Development Division, Department of Finance

Joyce Patel Acting Director, Lands Directorate, Lands and Environmental Management Branch, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Clerk of the Committee Mr. David Gagnon

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

If you had unanimous consent to table the amendment and moved on to unanimous consent to grant another day, you could go that way, if you could get that consent.

5:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

I want some clarification, then. Would tabling a motion on what we're currently discussing have the effect of tabling it until someone brings it forward again? How would that be brought forward again? I guess that's the question, right?

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I'll let the clerk deal with that technical question.

5:50 p.m.

The Clerk

I don't want to speak for the committee, but sometimes when members deal with one substantive motion and they want to deal with something else, they adjourn debate. That's one thing, but usually it's one substantive motion at a time.

5:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

I guess that's not really the question I was asking. The question I'm asking is, if there's a tabling motion on what we're currently discussing, to move to that, what enables it to be brought forward for discussion again? How is that triggered?

5:50 p.m.

The Clerk

I'm not so sure that I understand the question.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Can you rephrase that question? I don't understand it either, Blake.

5:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

I'll try.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Just hold on one second. We'll let the experts confer here.

Are there any implications for one committee dealing with an issue that's before another committee?

Blake was going to ask that question, but I'm wondering, for you guys in procedure, if there's—

5:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Mr. Chair, before you move to get a ruling on that from your clerk, I'll say that this isn't actually what's under discussion at the committee.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay. You're right.

5:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

They are simply having a study of loss, right? This is not actually directly what they're....

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay. It's part of the discussion but not the total.

5:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Yes, it's part of the discussion, but it's not the same question.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay. That's fine.

Rephrase your question and we'll see if we can answer it, Blake.

5:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

The suggestion that's being made is that we would table the discussion on the amendment, which would then allow Mr. Julian to bring forward his motion. If there were unanimous consent for that to happen, what would be required in order to bring the discussion on the amendment forward again?

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Basically, you would need unanimous consent to stay the motion for the time being. Then you would need unanimous consent to go to the motion that Mr. Julian would want to make to move to a different deadline for that motion we passed earlier, a few weeks ago, to take effect.

5:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

The third element to that then, regardless of the outcome of seeking that unanimous consent by Mr. Julian, is how the amendment would be brought back. That's what I'm trying to get at here. Would I need unanimous consent to do that as well?

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

The clerk can correct me if I'm wrong. If you were to ask for unanimous consent to stay that motion for the time being and didn't get it, then we would have to go to a vote on the motion.

5:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

You're saying that should the unanimous consent not be granted at that point, we would go back to the amendment that we're currently discussing and that wouldn't require unanimous consent or....

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Yes.

Mr. McLeod.

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we should stick to the motion. We're not intending to give unanimous consent. We're having a lot of discussion on that. Either we vote on the unanimous consent, or we vote on the motion.

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Are we ready for the question?

On CPC-9, I suspect you want a recorded vote?

5:55 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Yes. I do want a recorded vote, but I have a point of order after that.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

5:55 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

I have a point of order.

Given that we have now had the motion defeated, much of the rationale that was provided by the government members for opposing it was that HUMA was currently undertaking a study of the topic at hand. As I had indicated earlier, HUMA is refusing to follow the timeline that it was supposed to follow, which would not allow for this to be brought back to the House and considered by the government in time for anything to be done before the next election. As I said, it's not about words. It's about action.

What I want to understand and get a ruling on is whether this committee can request that another committee do something. In other words, can there be a motion of this committee requesting that HUMA complete its report on this, given it has finished its witness testimony as of Thursday, and bring a report before the House rises for the winter recess? Is that something that's within our power to request?