Evidence of meeting #199 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.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Each person has the right to vote how they see it.
It's on the floor. I have to deal with it as a question procedurally.
We are voting on Mr. Fergus's motion to lift the data I read and debate it.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The debate is open.
I'll go to Mr. Dusseault.
I believe Mr. Richards had his.... Yes, Mr. Richards.
Okay.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
In any case, since my name appears after that of Mr. Kmiec on the list, I should normally be the first to speak.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I simply want to state my opinion briefly. First, I think the debate has gone on far too long since we've devoted an entire meeting to it, if not more, discussing a study that should take up three meetings.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Out of respect for our remaining time, I would simply like to say I'm going to oppose this amendment, since I think the scope of the study would be far too narrow. The topics Mr. Kmiec proposes in his motion would restrict the committee's freedom to examine other aspects of the entire issue of an open banking system.
I don't think it's a good idea for the committee to limit itself in that way. The broader the wording of the motion, the more easily we can address these many extremely important issues, but also go beyond them. Most of the proposed topics will probably be raised in our meetings, but we mustn't focus solely on them. So it's not worth it to adopt this amendment.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We are debating the amendment and subamendment, is that it?
Okay, it's the amendment.
You're speaking as opposed to it.
Who's next on the speaking list?
Mr. Richards.
12:50 p.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I'll just return to the point I made prior to the....
12:50 p.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Yes, the point of order, point of appeal, the Richards-Easter rule or whatever you want to call it.
It does concern me. I know this is something that my colleague Mr. Kmiec had a great degree of interest in, to the point that he crafted an amendment that is quite lengthy and detailed. This debate has carried on over portions of more than...I'm not sure, but there have been a couple of meetings.
12:50 p.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
It's been going on over portions of three different meetings, which obviously indicates that my colleague had some significant thoughts and concerns.
I raised some. I know others on both sides raised a fair bit of debate on this, as well, but certainly, the person who had the greatest degree of interest in debating exactly what the motion looked like was my colleague Mr. Kmiec. The fact that he would not be able to participate in further debate on this particular amendment, and on the motion itself, if there were to be a vote on the amendment, does concern me. I think, in the interest of fairness, this shouldn't have been brought forward at this point.
It is not that I am wanting to say that I don't believe this is an important study by any means. I know there are other things that some members of the committee want to be working on and looking at, as well. They are also important issues. However, at the end of the day, I think it is important when someone has shown that degree of interest, there's an indication that he wants to have that opportunity to participate in this. For it to be brought forward at this meeting, without any indication that it would be part of the agenda today—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I am very patiently listening to my colleague Mr. Richards, but this debate is not germane to the motion at hand. This is a debate about the debate, which I don't believe is relevant to the actual debate.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I would just ask that Mr. Richards get to the substance of the issue.
12:55 p.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Yes, I'm happy to do that. Obviously, the indications I am making in my comments, and I certainly have much more to say yet, in relation to the motion itself, are that I have a colleague who wants the opportunity to participate in this final decision. That's not being enabled. I think the fact that this was brought forward for a debate here is problematic from that perspective. I intend to get into further discussion about the amendment itself and its contents. I think that context was and is important to provide as part of that discussion and debate.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We've heard the context now, so perhaps we could get into the substance.
12:55 p.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
I'll go through Mr. Kmiec's concerns point by point.
He has brought forward this amendment. I think I have it correctly in front of me now.
Again, this does speak to that whole point I was making, that we've come here and we've debated this for enough time. Having said that, it wasn't really a part of the agenda for today and people didn't come with all the information. Because it is such a lengthy and substantive amendment, it is important that we have that information and our materials in front of us.
Fortunately, I've been able to dig out what I think is the material here. If I'm incorrect, I guess you'll point that out to me, Mr. Chair.
Looking at the points that Mr. Kmiec has in his amendment, and I believe that the—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'm wondering, since the last seven minutes now have been spent on the debate about the debate as opposed to the substance of the debate, is there a way that we can extend this by another seven minutes?
12:55 p.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First to his points, and I believe you've actually given them different lettering, but it is a) on the sheet I have.