Finance Committee on April 9th, 2019

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Seriously, I'm here all night.

The reality is that we did not have enough time to properly discuss that section. I think we would all acknowledge that privately. I know there is probably some desire to avoid putting that on the public record, but to have such an important amendment to the Criminal Code appear before a finance committee out of nowhere and then to discuss it in just a few short minutes is not in the public interest.

We do object to the idea that the chair would limit debate on each clause to five minutes. We also object to this hard deadline. There's no rush here. We know that there are many months for the committee and the House to return a bill for passage. There's no reason why Parliament couldn't meet in the summer months to work on the budget as well. It is not unusual for a budget implementation act to be passed in the fall, because none of the measures are particularly time-sensitive. If we were to have a debate here that lasted a little longer than normal, we could simply reconvene meetings in July and August. I know I would be prepared to attend those meetings. I think most Canadians would think it reasonable that we do our jobs in the summer as well, not just in the spring. Being an MP is a full-time job. We can't expect to be at the cottage from June 24 until September 15 or 16. We have to be prepared to show up for work. If it takes until beyond the end of June to get the BIA passed, then I think we would do well by Canadians to show up and do our jobs. Some members have pointed out that they don't have cottages, which is even better. It means the recreational opportunity cost of being here will be particularly small for them.

I know that Mr. Sorbara, as an economist, will appreciate the reference to opportunity cost.

That is my intervention, Mr. Chair. I think there is a speakers list. I'll let the member go on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.

We'll turn to Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to my colleague for his presentation. I will try to be brief, out of respect for the witnesses who should be appearing before us shortly.

That being said, I will have to oppose the omnibus motion before us on this omnibus bill. The main reason is that, once again, as happens almost every year, budget implementation bills are studied in committee before they are even passed in the House. So we may well be doing work for nothing. If the bill is not passed in the House, it will never be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance. In that case, we will have done all this for absolutely nothing. To study the purpose of the bill before the House has even voted on it at second reading is to predict the outcome of a vote. I think it is inappropriate, as a matter of principle, for a committee to predict the outcome of a vote in the House. That is the main reason why I will be opposing the motion.

However, I would now like to propose that items 2 and 7 be extracted from the motion and put to a separate vote. As a result, the members of the committee could first vote on those two items and then on the rest of the motion. This would allow us, at the very least, to express the desire we have on this side of the table to invite the Minister of Finance to appear before the committee. I do not want my vote against this omnibus motion to be seen as a refusal to invite the minister and his officials to appear before us.

Since I would like the minister to appear before the committee, I would like to be able to comment separately on this issue. I therefore propose at this time that items 2 and 7 of the motion be extracted and voted on separately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

How do we proceed here? We can proceed by way of an amendment to extract sections 2 and 7. However, I understand you want to discuss them. Is that right, or do you just want them eliminated from the motion?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I want them to be extracted and voted on separately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There's a procedural problem here. The only way to do that, to pull them out, would be by way of an amendment or consent by the mover to basically set those two sections aside and deal with them separately.

What we would have to do in that case would be to withdraw the original motion, put forward a motion without sections 2 and 7 in it, and have two separate motions: one separate motion with section 2 in it and another separate motion with section 7 in it.

Can you propose an amendment to deal with this, Pierre?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

What I would propose is to seek the consent of the mover to extract those two: number 2 and number 7.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Would we be voting on each individual item?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

No, we have the motion in total as tabled.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Chair, if we can just get clarification, would sections 2 and 7 be removed and put in a new motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, as I understand it, but it would have to be two separate motions.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Maybe the clerk can explain procedurally what would have to happen in order to do that. On an amendment, the only motion that would probably work is to delete sections 2 and 7 from the original motion and come back in with them later as changed or whatever.

Mr. Dusseault, I think your dilemma, if I could put it this way, is that you want to hear from departmental officials and the minister—you want the departmental officials and the minister to appear—so you don't want to vote against them, but you want to vote against the motion as a whole. Am I correct?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Exactly, and I don't want to propose an amendment to delete those two sections that I'm supporting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

But I don't think procedurally there's any way we can proceed. If there's no unanimous consent—

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We have a point of order.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Chair, with the unanimous consent of all parties here, can we vote individually on each point? That will allow Mr. Dusseault to express his feelings with regard to the motion.

[An hon. member]

Yes, that makes sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If everybody agrees, we could.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

As long as we get to debate each one of them....

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Do you want us to vote on things we haven't debated?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

It's one motion. Just leave it as one motion and move on.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

You changed your mind.