Evidence of meeting #147 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clauses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Chambers, it was to be a vote on all of them that were not to be amended, and we would just be done with them.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Okay, that's right. I agree with that.
I thought he was saying one vote for all of them.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Yes, we could do that on division, exactly. Then from 18 to 36, we can—
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Exactly, but we needed to know what clauses needed to be pulled out of those groupings.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
The way that the motion was written, and how we have it here, is that it would be that all those that did not have any amendment.... You could change this, you know, but it's those that did not have unanimous consent. No, I'm sorry. All of those that were not amended would have been voted in one vote. That's how it was going to go.
All of those that I had read out—of course, now some have been pulled—would have been in that one vote. They would have been dealt with, and then we would have gone to all of those that were not voted on.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I understand what the chair's saying, but I think we have UC to proceed sequentially.
I appreciate it, Ryan, and it's not a bad practice to flag the ones in advance, but we're not going to waive our right to...if something comes up there.
Like I said, Ryan, there's nothing to worry about. We're here to be collaborative, to get our objections on the record but to move forward with this.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
All right. Am I hearing unanimous consent to do it the way we've done it in the past?
Where we can group them, we'll group them.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I think what we're saying is that we're going to follow the process that we've identified and the Conservatives may, from time to time, say that for a grouping we've just decided on, they want to speak to one of those in the package or.... I don't know.
No, I don't give unanimous consent to change the way we've agreed to operate based on the motion. I don't give unanimous consent for that. I think Mr. Lawrence is saying....
I'm not putting words in your mouth. What I thought I heard you say—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—is that the Conservatives are not waiving their right. If they do want to speak to a clause in one of those groupings, they can flag it when we get to that point. Then they can break that one out and speak to it. I get that.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
The go-around, Peter, is easy. We flag them all and then we get to the same place.
We don't want to be like that, quite frankly. We just want to go ahead by groupings. We're going to flag the numbers that are already flagged, but we're not waiving our right to flag as we go.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
We're all sort of agreeing, but in a weird way.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're starting with clauses 2 to 16 because we've been informed by MP Ste-Marie that he wants to speak to clause 17.
I'm going suspend.
9:42 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're back, and I think we have things kind of clear right now and in order.
We're going to start with clause 1, the short title, and clauses 2 to 16. We're grouping those.
9:42 a.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
We have a big moment here.
(Clauses 1 to 16 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 17)
9:42 a.m.
Liberal
9:42 a.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Part 2 of the bill makes big multinational corporations subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on their profits so they stop using tax havens in order to pay less tax and so they no longer evade their duty to obey the law. The effect of clause 17 is to exempt shipping companies from the 15% minimum tax, which would allow fleets to continue using tax havens and not pay tax.
Personally, I would call that “the Paul Martin clause”. I am opposed to it. I do not want us to give shipping companies a free pass. I want them to pay their fair share of tax like the other multinationals.
That is why I am asking that we vote on this clause and I encourage you to reject it.
9:42 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.
Is there any further debate on this?
Did you ask for a recorded vote or just ab show of hands?
9:42 a.m.
Bloc