Evidence of meeting #147 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
I'm sorry. Can you repeat that again? You missed between clauses 112 and 117.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Yes. I'm just reading the ones that did not have amendments. The ones that members submitted amendments for were not captured in this, so they are outside of these numbers.
I'm saying many numbers here. At times, I'm giving you an individual clause. At other times, I'm grouping those clauses.
Let me start from the beginning. It's not a problem. I know there are a lot here.
There were no amendments submitted for clause 1, which is the short title, clauses 2 to 37, clauses 39 to 79, clauses 81 to 112, clauses 117 to 122, clause 125, clauses 126 to 130, clauses 131 to 146, clauses 148 to 155, clause 159, clauses 161 to 196, clauses 199 to 202, clauses 205 and 206, clause 208, clauses 210 to 212, clauses 214 and 215, clauses 218 to 220, clauses 222 to 226, clauses 228 to 247, clauses 249 to 268, clause 270, clause 272, clauses 274 to 290, clauses 293 to 320, clauses 322 to 325, clauses 327 to 385, clauses 387 to 393, clauses 395 to 401, clauses 403 to 405, clauses 407 to 409, clause 411, clauses 413 to 437, clauses 439 and 440, clauses 442 to 444, clauses 446 to 460 and clauses 462 to 468.
Those are all of the clauses that did not receive amendments from members.
I see a hand up. I have MP Ste-Marie, and then I'll go to PS Turnbull.
MP Ste-Marie.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Chair, thank you for making the list of clauses that will not be amended. They include clauses 17 and 37, on which I would like us to have a discussion and a separate vote.
I also see that amendments are being proposed to clause 38, but not clause 39. I would like there to be a separate vote on clause 39 as well.
In part 4 of the bill, division 16, concerning consumer-driven banking services, includes clauses 198 to 227. There are amendments for those clauses. I would like to speak to clause 197 and have separate votes on clauses 197 to 227. Amendments are proposed to some of those clauses; for the clauses that have no amendments, I would like a separate vote. I also want to speak generally about clause 197.
I support my colleague Mr. Davis concerning clause 322. In division 31 of the bill, which contains clauses 322 to 333, I would like there to be discussion on clause 322 and possibly separate votes on clauses 322 to 333, even though some of those clauses have amendments.
I hope what I said was clear.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.
We are going to have the legislative clerk repeat those numbers so that we are clear and everybody has those.
Émilie Thivierge Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ste‑Marie, I have noted clauses 17, 37 and 39, clauses 197 to 227, and clauses 322 to 333.
Is that correct?
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I didn't catch what the legislative clerk said.
Could you repeat those numbers again? I just want to scribble them down here.
Legislative Clerk
Yes, it is clauses 17, 37, 39, 197 to 227 and 322 to 333.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have a list of numbers, but I'm a little confused about the process here, because I don't understand why we don't just go through it sequentially. We're going to have to pause, because we have three opposition parties and one government. There are a million different iterations that could happen, and one of us has to be able to raise a flag and say that the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives are all going to not support this.
Going through it sequentially is the only way that sort of makes sense to me. Then, at that point, we're going to have a recorded division. We'd want to talk about it at that point and, presumably, there would be some discussion. The Conservatives expect to be very collaborative in this meeting, to be clear. I just think that moving it through sequentially will save us a lot of time.
We can go through these groups and then someone can raise a flag and say, “I want to talk about this” or “three of the opposition parties are going to vote against it”. I would say, let's just go through this sequentially. We'll agree to the groupings. Like I said, we want to be collaborative. It's just that this process is going to be really cumbersome.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
As the chair, I go by what the committee had agreed to in the motion. This is kind of what was given to me, so this is what I brought forward.
I'm going to MP Davies and then PS Turnbull.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have just two things. One is that the clerk just read out the sections of the Bloc, but I'm not sure.... What about those numbers? What am I to do with those numbers that were just identified? These are clauses that what...? Is it that the Bloc wants to speak to...?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I'll let the Bloc speak to that.
MP Davies has just asked about the numbers, the clauses you referenced.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
For each of the clauses indicated, I would like there to be conversations and possibly votes.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
They're not clauses that are going to be amended. I don't understand. Are these clauses to be amended or to be voted against or just to be talked about?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
One second, please. I'll allow MP Ste-Marie to explain.
Could you just explain the clauses that you've asked to have pulled that did not have amendments?
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
What I understood about the method the committee chose is that all of the clauses you identified on which there are no amendments could be agreed to together on division. I therefore made a list of clauses that I would like to remove from that long ballot so they can be discussed separately in more detail and, in some cases, so I can request a separate vote.
Because I identified some divisions by their corresponding clauses, it includes clauses with amendments. For example, division 16, which deals with the open banking system, starts at clause 197. When we get to that clause, I am going to want to speak to that entire division, but that division contains clauses with amendments. As Mr. Davies said earlier regarding division 31, we have to speak to the first clause in a division to be able to state our position, have a discussion, make decisions, and, possibly, vote on certain clauses separately.
So my intention is to take the clauses in question off the big ballot of clauses that could be agreed to together on division.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
It sounds to me like MP Ste-Marie wants either a debate or a vote on those specific clauses.
Members, I'll just let you know that the motion you put forward, that you adopted, was to do it this way. That's why we've put it together this way.
I'll go to PS Turnbull and then to MP Chambers.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Maybe I can just clarify. I know this seems a little bit unwieldy, but I think we're going to benefit from this once we get organized. I think we're just about there. Bear with us, colleagues.
What you've done, Chair, is listed all of the clauses that you had grouped together. Committee members are now picking out ones that need to be separated out of those groupings, because there either needs to be a bit of a debate, or there's a separate individual vote. Also, in Mr. Davies' case and in a couple of cases, I think you've identified a couple of amendments that you're going to move from the floor. You've identified those clauses. That's why those have to be separated out from any groupings.
I'm really glad to hear Mr. Lawrence say that we're all going to work together collaboratively today to get this done. I'm really happy about that.
Mr. Chair, you had read out clauses 2 to 37 as having no amendments, but we now know that the Bloc on clauses 17 and 37 need separate votes so they can speak to those. Obviously, that grouping needs to now slightly change. It would be clauses 2 to 16 and then it would be 18 to 36.
I think that's what this enables us to do. It then will enable us to move quite quickly, I would think, based on those groupings. I'm hoping that we'll be able to vote through them fairly quickly, because nobody has a comment, nobody has an amendment and nobody needs to speak to any of those groupings. That will speed us up and I think get us out of here earlier, hopefully, today. I'm sure everybody will want to work as efficiently as possible.
I think it's just getting organized here at the beginning. I think the time is well spent. We're just about there. Let's stick to it. It's what we agreed on, and I would prefer to stick with what we agreed on.
Thank you.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Maybe we're all talking about the same thing, but I'm a bit confused. What's the intent after we go through the list?
Are we not just going to start right now and say clauses 2 to 37 have no amendments, then Mr. Ste-Marie says number 17, so we go to clauses 2 to 16 and pass them on division, and then we go to Mr. Ste-Marie?
Why don't we just go through it and start?
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
We're just about to do that, aren't we? Now that we have all of the numbers...?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
All of those clauses that were part of what I just read out that had no amendments would all be dealt with at once. Then we would move right—
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
I think that's a misunderstanding.
In order to keep the spirit of the motion adopted by the committee, we are to deal with all of the ones that are unamended first, but not all in one vote. We'll go through them. All of the unamended ones are first, unless someone has something to say about it, in which case, we'll stop, pause, pass the group of clauses up to that one, and then go on to the next one. Is that right? I think that's the only way it's going to work.