Finance Committee on June 13th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Turnbull.

I have MP Davies' hand up.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I will confess that I don't think I've ever been involved in a debate over when clause-by-clause starts on a pre-budget, so I'm struggling to work through what the implications are.

However, I'm conscious of this fact: If we didn't have this motion here today, what would the status quo be? The status quo would be that the legislation would be tabled sometime, I presume. We would come to this committee sometime in the fall. We would have nothing determined about when clause-by-clause starts. I don't know, to be honest, whether two weeks....

By the way, I agree with my colleague—“two sitting weeks”, I think, is good.

I don't know what the massive legislative implications of starting after two weeks or three weeks are. However, I think the Conservative motion saying “no later than three weeks” gives us the opportunity, as a committee, to determine if it's less than that, so I think we should pass this motion now. I'm okay with starting “no later than three weeks”, because it preserves the option to have this discussion in the fall, once we have the legislation in front of us. It's going to take a vote of the committee at that point, anyway. If, at that point—once we have the legislation—we decide we're going to start clause-by-clause a week or two weeks after, or take the full three weeks, we'll make that determination then.

I think this gives us a compromise that meets everybody's objectives. It puts a certain date on it for the government side, but it allows the discretion to make it less than that once we have legislation, which I think meets the Conservatives' concerns. I'm personally okay with it being “no later than three weeks” on the understanding that how it turns out in the fall will, in my view, be determined by the evidence we hear and by how complex the discussion turns out to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

Is that the discussion?

PS Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'll just say that I think Mr. Davies is very reasonable in his assessment.

Yes, if the committee can come to a consensus on “no later than three weeks”, I think that's fine.

[A voice]

We now want it for a month.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Oh, now you've changed it again. We know how this works.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

It's months, actually.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It's Conservative negotiation. The goalposts keep moving.

Have we achieved consensus, Mr. Chair? It seems as if we probably have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I believe we have.

Now we will be voting on the motion as amended and subamended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You're on a subamendment, yes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I think, technically, that we're on a subamendment about the minister, which doesn't actually talk about weeks.

I think we have to deal with the subamendment first. The parliamentary secretary would have to agree to amend the timeline from one week to three weeks after we do the subamendment.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

My thought was that we'd just do this by UC. Conservatives are agreeable to having the minister for an hour. If that's the final hill, we can just....

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

We're starting clause-by-clause no later than three weeks. If we could have the clerk read out where we are, just so we're all clear, and then everyone's voting on....

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

If we're doing it by UC, we can all just agree, but I need to hear it read back so that we're all comfortable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes. Go ahead.

Thank you.

[The Clerk]

I'll now read the motion. It reads:

That the committee hold no fewer than four meetings devoted to a prestudy of the ways and means motion introduced in the House of Commons on June 10, 2024, that at least one meeting be held prior to June 25, 2024, that witnesses may be submitted by each party prior to Friday at 5:00 p.m., that this study take priority over any other study in the fall, that all evidence gained in this study be taken into consideration during the study of the capital gains legislation once referred by the House of Commons, that clause-by-clause of the capital gains bill start three weeks after the bill is officially referred to the committee by the House of Commons, and that the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister be invited to appear for one hour during this prestudy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, I have a hand up.

Go ahead, MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Just so we are being fair, I believe we would say “no later than three weeks”. In case there is an opportunity to do it sooner, that would give that possibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

It's “no later than three weeks”, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You are correct.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

I think when it was read back, that “no later than” was not included.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

Are all members clear on that? Yes. Does everyone understand?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I'm sorry. Could you just read it back one more time?

I'm sorry, Peter. We only get one shot at this—